Networks ignored Panetta's caveats about CIA summary of Pelosi briefing
SUMMARY: Each of the network newscasts reported that CIA records show Nancy Pelosi was briefed about the use of waterboarding on Abu Zubaydah, but did not note Leon Panetta's caveats regarding the accuracy of the information in the documents.
During their May 14 reports on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) statements regarding what she was told in secret briefings about the CIA's use of waterboarding, each of the network evening newscasts pointed to CIA records describing a September 4, 2002, briefing that, according to NBC News' Kelly O'Donnell, "show Pelosi was given a description of the particular enhanced interrogation techniques that had been employed" on Al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah. However, none of the reports noted that in a letter accompanying the documents, CIA Director Leon Panetta suggested the information in the documents may not be "an accurate summary of what actually happened," as blogger Greg Sargent noted a week ago.
On the CBS Evening News, justice and homeland security correspondent Bob Orr reported that "Pelosi was briefed ... on September 4, 2002," and that, "[a]ccording to CIA records, she was told about, quote, 'EITs [enhanced interrogation techniques] on Abu Zubaydah ... and a description of particular EITs that had been employed.' " Orr continued: "While the word 'waterboarding' was not used, the CIA's description of the meeting suggests Pelosi was told Zubaydah had been waterboarded." On ABC's World News, senior congressional correspondent Jonathan Karl reported: "Pelosi's words seem to directly contradict a declassified timeline of congressional briefings compiled by the CIA, which says Pelosi was told of the specific interrogation methods used on Zubaydah."
As Media Matters for America has documented, Panetta's letter, sent to House Intelligence Committee chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), ranking member Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), and other congressional members, states that the information in the attached intelligence documents "is drawn from the past files of the CIA and represents MFRs [memorandums for the record] completed at the time and notes that summarized the best recollections" of individuals involved. Each letter also states that "[i]n the end, you and the Committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened." From Panetta's letter:
This letter presents the most thorough information we have on dates, locations, and names of all Members of Congress who were briefed by the CIA on enhanced interrogation techniques. This information, however, is drawn from the past files of the CIA and represents MFRs 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 whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened. We can make the MFRs available at CIA for staff review.
From the May 14 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams:
WILLIAMS: Now, to Washington: What did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi know and when did she know it? That's the question that consumed much of the capital city today. The subject here is torture and what the U.S. did to its prisoners.
We get more on all of it tonight from Kelly O'Donnell, who's on Capitol Hill. Kelly, good evening.
O'DONNELL: Good evening, Brian. The speaker has long been a strong opponent of waterboarding. And after new details came out that showed that she knew the technique was being used as early as several years ago, some of her critics are wondering what, if anything, did she try to do to stop it?
[begin video clip]
O'DONNELL: Today, Pelosi carefully read from her prepared statement to try to square what she's been saying against the CIA's differing accounts.
PELOSI: The CIA briefed me only once on enhanced interrogation techniques in September 2002.
O'DONNELL: A few weeks ago, Pelosi told reporters that, in 2002, CIA briefers had only told her waterboarding was considered legal for future use.
PELOSI: We were not -- I repeat -- we were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used.
O'DONNELL: But there's a problem. When Pelosi got that briefing from the CIA in 2002, waterboarding had in fact already been used 83 times on suspect Abu Zubaydah. Today, the CIA said it stands by its own records from that briefing that show Pelosi was given a description of the particular enhanced interrogation techniques that had been employed.
Today, Pelosi said the CIA lied.
PELOSI: Yes -- misleading the Congress of the United States.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And also --
PELOSI: Misleading the Congress of the United States.
O'DONNELL: Adding to the controversy and confusion, Pelosi said that, months after her own briefing, it was one of her aides, and not the CIA, that first told her waterboarding was indeed being used. Today, Republicans lashed out at the speaker.
BOEHNER: I think the problem is that the speaker has had way too many stories on this issue.
[end video clip]
O'DONNELL: And, Brian, the speaker says that she has no regrets about not making her own personal or formal complaint to the Bush White House or the CIA. She says it simply would have done no good, and that her focus was on trying to get more Democrats elected, who would change the interrogation policy -- Brian.
WILLIAMS: Kelly O'Donnell on the Hill for us tonight. Kelly, thanks.
From the May 14 broadcast of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:
JEFF GLOR (anchor): House Speaker Nancy Pelosi denied today that she was complicit in the waterboarding of terror suspects. She insists that she wasn't told waterboarding had been used and she accused the CIA of lying.
Justice correspondent Bob Orr has this story.
[begin video clip]
ORR: Rebutting charges that she knew about waterboarding nearly seven years ago and raised no objections, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today launched an offensive.
PELOSI: They mislead us all the time.
ORR: In uncommonly strong language, Pelosi accused the CIA and the Bush administration of skirting the truth of the treatment of Al Qaeda terrorist suspects.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Madam Speaker, just to be clear, you're accusing the CIA of lying to you --
PELOSI: Yes --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- in September of 2002?
PELOSI: -- misleading the Congress of the United States.
ORR: Pelosi says she was only briefed once about harsh interrogation methods and was not told waterboarding was being used against top Al Qaeda detainees. In a rare public response, the CIA pointed to recently released documents that raise questions about Pelosi's account. This declassified Justice Department memo shows that Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded at least 83 times in August 2002. Pelosi was briefed after that, on September 4, 2002.
According to CIA records, she was told about, quote, "EITs [enhanced interrogation techniques] on Abu Zubaydah ... and a description of particular EITs that had been employed." While the word "waterboarding" was not used, the CIA's description of the meeting suggests Pelosi was told Zubaydah had been waterboarded. Pelosi denies that.
PELOSI: In fact, we were told that waterboarding was not being used.
ORR: But Republicans say Pelosi and other Democrats were fully in the loop. Between 2002 and 2007, CIA records show intelligence committee members from both parties received at least 28 classified briefings on harsh interrogations.
BOEHNER: It's pretty clear that they were well aware of what these enhanced interrogation techniques were. They were well aware that they had been used.
[end video clip]
ORR: Pelosi is pushing for a so-called truth commission to sort out who knew what when. But that could be a perilous course for Republicans and Democrats.
Bob Orr, CBS News, Washington.
From the May 14 broadcast of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:
GIBSON: Now, to the controversy over interrogation techniques used on terror suspects, a controversy that seems to grow by the day: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi created something of a political firestorm today, accusing CIA officials of lying to Congress in 2002 about its interrogation methods. Did they lie?
Here's Jonathan Karl.
[begin video clip]
KARL: It's Pelosi versus the CIA.
PELOSI: We were not -- I repeat -- we were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used.
KARL: That's what she said in April. Today, she went further, saying the CIA briefed her in September 2002 and told her, point blank, the technique had not been used.
PELOSI: The only mention of waterboarding at that briefing was that it was not being employed.
KARL: By that time, however, Al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah had already been waterboarded 83 times.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Madam Speaker, just to be clear, you're accusing the CIA of lying to you --
PELOSI: Yes --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- in September of 2002?
PELOSI: -- misleading the Congress of the United States.
KARL: Pelosi's words seem to directly contradict a declassified timeline of congressional briefings compiled by the CIA, which says Pelosi was told of the specific interrogation methods used on Zubaydah. Pelosi is also contradicted by the only other member of Congress at the briefing, Republican Porter Goss, who wrote recently, "We understood what the CIA was doing. We gave the CIA our bipartisan support."
Although she says she was told it was not used, Pelosi acknowledged the CIA did tell her that they had legal approval for waterboarding. So why didn't she protest, perhaps in a letter to the CIA director?
PELOSI: No letter or anything else is going to stop them from doing what they're going to do.
KARL: Former Senator Bob Graham, a Democrat, had a similar briefing two weeks after Pelosi.
GRAHAM: The topic of waterboarding did not come up, and if they -- it would have been a term that I would have had to have asked them to define.
[end video clip]
KARL: This comes as Pelosi is facing a firestorm of criticism from Republicans who say if she knew about waterboarding but didn't do anything, then she, too, bears responsibility.
Jonathan Karl, ABC News, Capitol Hill.
Granny looked a tad shaky during the grilling yesterday. I'd say she was a wee bit nervous. Shifty eyed is never good on the tee vee.
So is your indignation expressed in your elequent comments over Nancy Pelosi being the most powerful woman in the country? Or is it that our great country resorted to adhorent behavior because our leaders were too scared?
Or are you just another right-wing pety little dittohead?
The Hill: "CIA director says Pelosi received the truth," By Sam Youngman Posted: 05/15/09 02:19 PM [ET]
Where's that correction, MM?
Eh?
^
In fact, isn't this story explicitly about the fact that the CIA considers these records potentially unreliable?
No one is disputing what the records say. Director Panetta's memo to his agents you mention is both correct and non-contradictory. No one disputes that the records say Pelosi was briefed. They are not ambiguous. What people are disputing is whether the records are accurate.
Can you imagine any scenario in which an investigation into the Speaker's actions or inactions can not lead up to the Bush White House?
Be careful what you wish for.
Of course, waterboarding is one thing, an apparent crime under U.S. and international law. But there is also the question of extraordinary renditions and what the Bush/Cheney administration knew about -- or possibly approved -- concerning third-party torture (in other countries).
George W. Bush repeatedly said, "The U.S. does not torture." He may have been wrong about that. But what about torture that may have been done on our behalf, for which the U.S. may even have compensated other countries, and that may have been quite barbaric?
I know you Leftists don't want to accept it, you're trying to do everything you can to deny and circumvent the evidence, but it really is looking like some of your leaders will be scalded by the same hot water you're trying to cook Republicans in. I know this goes against the doctrine of Left-wing superiority. I understand how disturbing that might be. You have some small amount of my sympathy.
It was a very difficult realization for me when I was finally forced to recognize that the people on the Left aren't necessarily better than the people on the Right. Just think of it as a challenge. Instead of knowing that you are on the side of goodness and believing that goodness prevents your allies from being bad or washes away their badness in a flood of overwhelming goodness, look upon it as an opportunity to really establish your own understanding and identity, attached to neither side, free to pick and choose what you find convincing no matter where it originates.
On a personal level it may be difficult to surrender the belief that a scale of enlightenment in which you have been among those who really 'gets it,' might not be as valid as you once assumed. but look at it this way, the progress of the road to the better world you're working to build has frequently been beset with delays and even set-backs. Perhaps this process will hone and refine your understanding and help to make you a stronger, more effective advocate of the cause.
Unfortunately I think this one is going to end just like the Texas Air National Guard story. Despite a mountain of evidence & witness testimony regarding W's military service record, the only thing swing voters remember about it was a forged document. Perhaps a real investigation would have revealed the validity of the information on the document despite the document's authenticity. In five years you can ask people on the street what they remember about the time the U.S. tortured detainees and the first answer most will give you is 'oh yes, Pelosi knew about it.'
Why would republicans risk the revelations due process might bring about when the media have let them spin the last word in their favor? More importantly, what will it take to make the democrats call their bluff?
For the last paragraph take your own advise. You TALK about enlightenment while posting a bunch of sophistry and inanity. Your condescension is precious considering the lack of substance in your posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition
--"The American Civil Liberties Union alleges that extraordinary rendition was developed during the Clinton administration by CIA officials in the mid-1990s who were trying to track down and dismantle militant Islamic organizations in the Middle East, particularly Al Qaeda.
"In a New Yorker interview with CIA veteran Michael Scheuer, an author of the rendition program under the Clinton administration, writer Jane Mayer noted, "In 1995, American agents proposed the rendition program to Egypt, making clear that it had the resources to track, capture, and transport terrorist suspects globally — including access to a small fleet of aircraft. Egypt embraced the idea... 'What was clever was that some of the senior people in Al Qaeda were Egyptian,' Scheuer said. 'It served American purposes to get these people arrested, and Egyptian purposes to get these people back, where they could be interrogated.' Technically, U.S. law requires the CIA to seek 'assurances' from foreign governments that rendered suspects won’t be tortured. Scheuer told me that this was done, but he was 'not sure' if any documents confirming the arrangement were signed." However, Scheuer testified before Congress that no such assurances were received. He further acknowledged that treatment of prisoners may not have been "up to U.S. standards." However, he stated, "This is a matter of no concern as the Rendition Program’s goal was to protect America, and the rendered fighters delivered to Middle Eastern governments are now either dead or in places from which they cannot harm America. Mission accomplished, as the saying goes."
"Thereafter, with the approval of President Clinton and a presidential directive (PDD 39), the CIA instead elected to send suspects to Egypt, where they were turned over to the Egyptian Mukhabarat."--
FYI - prisoners get tortured in Egypt.
Don't like the evidence? Prove it to be unreliable(it's Wikipedia, after all, so nothing is certain), but you can't deny there is evidence.
In the meantime, using Wikipedia (you approve, right?) I should point out that "the US has used legal rendition increasingly since the 1980s as a method for dealing with foreign defendants". In particular:
"The Reagan administration did not undertake this kidnapping lightly. Then-FBI Director William Webster had opposed an earlier bid to snatch Yunis, arguing that the United States should not adopt the tactics of Israel, which had abducted Adolf Eichmann on a residential street in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in 1960... In 1984 and 1986, during a wave of terrorist attacks, Congress passed laws making air piracy and attacks on Americans abroad federal crimes. Ronald Reagan added teeth to these laws by signing a secret covert-action directive in 1986 that authorized the CIA to kidnap, anywhere abroad, foreigners wanted for terrorism. A new word entered the dictionary of U.S. foreign relations: rendition."
So if we're going to look at Clinton, how about we take it back to Reagan?
The point is that on occasion our government, whether it be Republican or Democratic, has to do things to save the republic that are not so glamorous. But unless those things are done, we won't have a republic to save. Most Republicans get this. Some Democrats get this. Clinton, FDR, JFK, they got this. Obama is slowly getting it. We're the ones being consistent here. The ones that believe such actions are never necessary are consistent as well. They're just consistently naive.
The ones being inconsistent are those that knew about it, accepted it as something that needed to be done, and after the fact claim to be outraged by it. That's where Pelosi comes in.
As to your argument that it was a practice to demand that host countries not torture, the Wikipedia article explains that this "demand" was only a way to provide (semi-)plausible deniability. The whole idea of extraordinary rendition is to get the benefits of torture while claiming to be above such actions, because you didn't actually "know" that it was taking place. "Should have known"? That's another story. Still, someone has to do the dirty work.
The other point is that Solon's challenge to cite evidence that the renditions Clinton did went to countries where they would be tortured has been met. I cited evidence. You're welcome.
Torture wasn't just going on during the Cold War, many of the techniques we are debating now were developed during it:
http://www.americantorture.com/the_book.html
And it's not just us. The UK too:
http://newsmine.org/content.php?ol=coldwar-imperialism/britain-torture-camp-photos-revealed.txt
What about the Nazis? Yep, we used EITs on them as well:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-13/how-torture-helped-win-wwii/
As to whether there is anywhere near the danger from the USSR versus Al Qaeda et al, the USSR didn't manage to carry out an attack on US soil.
So if you're keeping score, that's
USSR - 0 (unless you count the movie "Red Dawn")
Nutbags in caves - 1
Finally, you are correct that a false dichotomy (false dilemma, false choice) is a type of logical fallacy. You are also correct that I presented a dichotomy. What you failed to show is that it is false. Just adding the word "clearly" isn't enough. You wouldn't be assuming the conclusion of your argument, would you? Because that would be...oh, forget it.
Unless you can prove that we were able to obtain the information that we needed and obtained in less glamorous ways, each and every time "torture" has been employed, AND that we knew IN ADVANCE that we would be able to do the same, under the time pressures we were presented, each and every time, you haven't shown that I presented a "false dichotomy".
Of course, this would also require you to know what information we actually obtained from those we "tortured", the circumstances, potential threats, etc., and that information is classified. It would also require refuting the judgments of many American political and military leaders throughout our history.
But have at it!
Al Qaeda boarded airplanes and used box cutters. The USSR had nuclear weapons pointed directly at us. I say nuclear weapons are more of a danger to us than people in caves.
Second, 9/11 happened because of the incompetence of the Bush administration. When they came into office they were focused on anything but terrorism. Then 9/11 came along and they resorted to un-American policies to cover-up their incompetence during the run up to the attack (instead of taking responsibility for their failures, they blamed our policies and laws and went draconian).
We’ve always faced threats and other presidents didn’t resort to un-American policies. FISA doesn’t hamper national security; not torturing people doesn’t hamper national security; affording the accused with every means possible to fight his detention and providing the evidence that is being used to hold him doesn’t hamper national security; giving detainees trials instead of holding them indefinitely doesn’t hamper national security.
KSM confessed to over thirty plots. You can believe the information he gave up if you want to; I don’t.
If anything valuable was obtained Cheney would just blurt it out. He has no problem releasing classified information.
Second, the CIA doesn’t want certain people to know if we got anything or nothing at all from torture.
I DID show it was a false dichotomy. It was YOUR claim and unless you can SHOW that the ONLY two choices are torture or the ending of our existance, a claim ludicrous on the FACE of it. Then it is obviously and CLEARLY a false dichotomy. Tell me you arent REALLY arguing that either we torture people or we will cease to exist. That is too silly to even take seriously.
Ah no it wouldnt. YOU would have to cough up examples of how our very existance was at risk and ONLY torture could save us. You also need to explain why if it meant our very existance why Ronald Reagan signed the Convention AGAINST torture statute and why the Senate ratified it. Also why so many interogaters are saying that torture isnt effective and wasnt needed. So far you have done NONE of that.
Or are you just blowing smoke?
Sorry went on a tangent there.
-- Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress...our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing “the enhanced techniques that had been employed. -- Leon Panetta, Dir.CIA
Additionally, Porter Goss...the former CIA Director and former head of the House intelligence committee...has refuted Pelosi's statements.
No matter how fast mmfa and others man the bilge pumps...Pelosi's ship is sinking.
She darn well knew what was going on with the interrogation of suspects...and she chose to "dummy up"...waiting for better political winds.
This matter has nothing to do with blaming Pelosi for any possible wrong doings in the interrogations. It has everything to do with her incredible lack of leadership, rank partisanship...and the dereliction of her duties.
That is, if one believes her shock and dismay over the EIT's that were employed...I do not.
It's a rough game of politics played in Washington and yesterday's allies are today's ghosts...and the rats in the hold of the USS Pelosi will rapidly abandon this sinking ship.
"So if the first Bybee memo was written in Aug 2002 stating that: "Congress may no more regulate the President's ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield" and Pelosi was supposedly briefed in Sept 2002, what recourse did she have? The DoJ memo states that she can't do crap to stop torture and it's a secret program so revealing it to the public would have been against the law."
Care to comment on NG's question, wes?
First, I believe Pelosi was fully aware of the interrogation tactics being used.
Having said that, there was plenty that Pelosi could have said and done. She would not have violated any law if she had gone on the floor of the house and spoken out loudly against the use of the tactics she felt were unwarranted...like waterboarding...without revealing any info from the briefings.
She could have used her bully pulpit to speak out against certain EIT's that she opposed...without revealing any info from the briefings.
I recognize that her party was not in control of the house for much of that period and passing such legislation would have been difficult if not impossible to pass...but it was her silence...and now...falsehoods that I take exception with.
She chose the cowardly and politically expedient manner by remaining silent and not taking a stand...when she darn well knew what was going on...and she isn't alone.
Where do you get the idea we are upset about the act of EIT?.
If Pelosi is lying now, I want those other committee persons, including the Repugs to point a finger at her and say on Fox News," I was there with her when we were informed that illegal torture was being performed and SHE didn't say a word about it and since know one asked me, I didn't say anything."
mmfa and others have been floating that red herring for quite a while.
You prosecute the people who undercut torture laws and those who authorized torture. It seems pretty simple to me.
princeofwheels' comment is that if the briefings took place as the CIA claims, then other members of Congress sat in on those briefings. So far, we've heard from 2 members of Congress, both of whom dispute the accuracy of the CIA records. There are at least 6 other members* (2 Democrats, 4 Republicans) who would have also gotten those briefings. If they were briefed together, they would be able to say "I was in the room when Congresswoman Pelosi was informed that waterboarding had been used". If they were briefed separately, they'd be able to say "waterboarding was mentioned in my briefing without me having to ask about it".
Any of the remaining 6 "informees" making either of the above statements would be serious evidence against Pelosi. Right now, it's 2 "informees" (Pelosi and Graham) vs. the CIA, a classic "he said, she said". If it were 2 "informees" vs the CIA and 1-6 "informees", it would be more clear that the CIA is right. Similarly, if it's 4-8 "informees" vs. the CIA, it's likely the CIA is wrong. It's still "He said, she said", but it's better than what we have now.
* - "Gang of 8" briefings involve the chair and ranking member of the Intelligence Committee as well as the minority and majority leader in both the House and the Senate.
But if Pelosi wants to pursue a criminal case against those that were simply doing their job, parading the actors before her throne and feigning outrage in the process, then she should by all means be dragged down with them, considering she at the very least assented to their actions.
But keep hanging on to her version(s) of the story, Media Matters. Even Jon Stewart can't back you up on this one.
Nice strawman argument you have there.
We want Pelosi punished for LIEING, not for anything else.
We want -MORE- EIT if needed!
You sound ridiculous.
I take exception to Pelosi's shameless politicking with national security issues...particularly her cry that the CIA lied...simply to cover her own dereliction and lack of leadership.
Lets see...the current CIA director doesn't support her allegations...a former CIA director doesn't support her allegations...and the current House majority leader doesn't support her allegations.
In the meantime, looks like the stakes are getting elevated. Bob Graham just commented. I find this statement troubling for the GOP and CIA claim:
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.
Not being allowed to take notes? That doesn't help the argument, does it? Unless something more concrete turns up, I'm going to take investigative statements like this a little more seriously. And even if something more concrete appears, I again challenge republicans to explain why it's more important than actually breaking US laws and engaging in torture.
The Pelosi thing is a sideshow. I don't think very highly of her not WANTING to know more or challenging even their mention of waterboarding. She and others all should have been raising holy hell behind the scenes, since they couldn't do it publically. But the real criminals are those who developed the policy and carried it out.
As for bully pulpit, here's how such a thing would go:
Pelosi: Waterboarding and torture are wrong and America shouldn't torture.
Bush Admin [lying]: America doesn't torture and we don't use waterboarding.
Pelosi: You're lying!
Bush Admin: Prove it!
Without being able to reference the briefings and with the CIA and the Bush Administration having already demonstrated that they'd lie "for national security reasons", there'd be no reason for Pelosi to believe she had a chance at better than "he said, she said". And given the way the press and politicians treated the Iraq War run-up, "he said, she said" goes to the administration.
I don't see how he would know that if he wasn't actually at the briefing.
He said it's his recollection that... Pelosi recollects differently. And in the second paragraph Goss looks to be parsing his words. He says they were told that waterboarding was to be employed (waterboarding was already being employed). Pelosi's contention is that she was never told waterboarding was currently going on and that waterboarding may be a direction in which the CIA would go and that legal documents were being drawn up. Then he says it's hard not to believe a congress member wasn't briefed on the interrogations of KSM (Goss switches to the generality of interrogation instead remaining with the waterboarding aspect). Pelosi doesn't dispute that she was briefed on the interrogations of KSM. Her contention is that it was done sans waterboarding.
Secondly, opinions differ on whether waterboarding is torture...I'm in the military in a relatively elite group (Pararescue) and we go through various survival courses and learn about various techniques that the enemy may use against us...I can tell you that what is being reported in the media as torture is not...but most people will not do the research or even read the memos...they go by various reports and forums without making their own conclusions.
I have served for 26 years in part to protect our freedom of speech...what saddens me is the vitriolic discourse that seems to be the norm these days when someone disagrees with someone else...we're all americans...we live in a wonderful country, yet we resort to name calling, personal attacks, and other crass means when we debate...I for one would hope that this trend would end...we can disagree and be civil...thanks for reading and god bless america.
v/r,
SMSgt James Thede
USAF Pararescue
ODS, OPC, OEF, OIF
"Voluntarily" is a loaded statement...my training was required for my specialty...it wasn't voluntary...but we did know it was coming...but did not know what was coming (big difference).
I did not have any control...our instructors did...as did the interrogators regarding the waterboarding...read the memos...they'll tell you everything...I think there were more protections for the terrorists than us lowely students...however I will grant that training is certainly different than real-world interrogation...but our stuff was real I can assure you.
I did not have "all the control" loonz...I was out of control and that is what survival school is all about...putting a student in a situation in which they have no control to see how they react...it is indeed real.
Having said that I know I was in a training situation...all I'm saying is having gone through the training I have done, especially water confidence...waterboarding does not seem all that bad...I can function underwater...I can deal with the rotor wash of an MH-53 or an HH-60 or a CV-22...it beats you around, and you have to care for your survivor, but you deal with it...and that is why we go through that training...to make sure we can deal with it...nothing more, nothing less.
I respect your opinion sir...but respectfully disagree.
v/r
SMSgt Thede
You don't consider forcibly drowning someone and releasing them at some point before they die torture?
"Forcibly drowning" someone is a loaded question sir...I urge you to read the memos...it was forcible, but at no time did the terrorists come close to "dying"...given the actionable intelligence we got from these interrogations I would ask you if they were worth it...I "assume" your answer is no...so I ask "why not"? If these interrogations saved lives...maybe yours...why not embrace them?
Additionally...I go back to reading the memos...they point out numerous supporiting decisions regarding these integoration techniques...are you a lawyer in the position to counter these decisions based on law and decisions? Do terrorists, that do not comply with the laws of war, merit constitutional protections? Why would we or should we grant such protections to known terrorists that care not about any international legal precedent?
I anxiously await your answers sir.
Respectfully,
SMSgt Thede
In the course of the Senate Judiciary Committee's consideration of President Bush's nominee for the post of Attorney General, there has been much discussion, but little clarity, about the legality of "waterboarding" under United States and international law. We write Because this issue above all demands clarity: Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal.
In 2006 the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on the authority to prosecute terrorists under the war crimes provisions of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. In connection with those hearings the sitting Judge Advocates General of the military services were asked to submit written responses to a series of questions regarding "the use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of drowning (i.e., waterboarding) . . ." Major General Scott Black, U.S. Army Judge Advocate General, Major General Jack Rives, U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General, Rear Admiral Bruce MacDonald, U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General, and Brigadier Gen. Kevin Sandkuhler, Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, unanimously and unambiguously agreed that such conduct is inhumane and illegal and would constitute a violation of international law, to include Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
We agree with our active duty colleagues. This is a critically important issue - but it is not, and never has been, a complex issue, and even to suggest otherwise does a terrible disservice to this nation. All U.S. Government agencies and personnel, and not just America's military forces, must abide by both the spirit and letter of the controlling provisions of international law. Cruelty and torture - no less than wanton killing - is neither justified nor legal in any circumstance. It is essential to be clear, specific and unambiguous about this fact - as in fact we have been throughout America's history, at least until the last few years. Abu Ghraib and other notorious examples of detainee abuse have been the product, at least in part, of a self-serving and destructive disregard for the well-established legal principles applicable to this issue. This must end.
The Rule of Law is fundamental to our existence as a civilized nation. The Rule of Law is not a goal which we merely aspire to achieve; it is the floor below which we must not sink. For the Rule of Law to function effectively, however, it must provide actual rules yhat can be followed. In this instance, the relevant rule - the law - as long been clear: Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances. To suggest otherwise - or even to give credence to such a suggestion - represents both an affront to the law and to the core values of our nation.We respectfully urge you to consider these principles in connection with the nomination of Judge Mukasey.
Sincerely,
Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, United States Navy (Ret.)
Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2000-02
Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, United States Navy (Ret.)
Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1997-2000
Major General John L. Fugh, United States Army (Ret.)
Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1991-93
Brigadier General David M. Brahms, United States Marine Corps (Ret.)
Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, 1985-88
opinions differ on whether waterboarding is torture
Liar. How's that for civil. You're a LIAR.
Second, how is Pelosi's denial "clearly a lie"? On one hand, we've got Pelosi and Graham's recollections and notes, and on the other hand, the CIA's recollections and notes. Given that the CIA seem less sure of itself (having put a large caveat on its notes), this seems at best a tossup.
-- House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) says he has no "basis" to blame the C.I.A. for lying to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the House of Representatives about the type of interrogations they were using at the time, including waterboarding. "I don't draw that conclusion," Rep. Hoyer said on the House floor. -- RealClearPolitics
The CIA's allegations that Sadam Hussein had WMD's and access to nuclear weapons were subsequently debunked.
The CIA denied the existence of black sites and its use of extraordinary rendition.
With this in mind, it's important to trace connections between recent leaks by the CIA alleging the tacit approval of Pelosi and other Democrats in the use of torture.
One should not overlook leaks by intelligence officials of the alleged intervention of Rep. Jane Harman (another Democratic leader on the Intelligence Committee) in a a case involving domestic spying by AIPAC representatives.
Also, a recent uptick in news reports claiming confirmation by anonymous sources that Pelosi was aware of the CIA's use of waterboarding on military detainees demonstrate an emerging pattern.
Let's not forget CIA Director's Panetta's letter wherein he admitted he could not vouch for the accuracy of recently leaked CIA reports.
When these factors are examined in view of the CIA's CYA mode, its not hard to believe the agency will fare much better if it can successfully show that Pelosi and other Democrats were tacitly complicit in its use of EIT.
"You didn't stop me so it's all your fault!"
And for those who believe waterboarding isn't torture, I have no problem with that either. You're entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is irrelevant. A matter of law has to be settled in a venue that carries the weight of law, not the court of public opinion. If you really believe that waterboarding isn't torture and no problem exists, you should welcome investigations since the obvious result will be complete exoneration of the Bush administration (and everyone else), and waterboarding will be accepted as U.S. policy. That's what you believe, right? I mean, otherwise you'd be trying to find some way to squirm out of investigating anyone, and we all know you wouldn't do that. Right?
Really?? Then why aren't the Democrats, who control the Presidency, the House, and the Senate, investigating? Why did the talk of investigation come to a grinding halt when it was realized that Pelosi not only knew about the "EITs", but didn't have the decency to even protest it? Why on Earth are MOST Democrats coming to Pelosi's defense if MOST Democrats would "be perfectly content" with everyone involved being investigated?
I, for one, would love to have the whole thing investigated. I would love to make it very public how many people approved/demanded/condoned or condemned torture. You think it bothers conservatives to think that Bush or Cheney would be implicated in that? What bothers me right now is that the same people who were oozing vitriol over the Bush Administrations's actions were themselves involved and condoning those very actions. And now they are lying about it. Yeah, we absolutely should investigate.
If she did speak up, the Republicans and their friends at Fox would have denounced her for exposing classified information. This behavior has become so obviously predictable that every complaint is an opportunity cost to credibility.