View Full Version : Pelosi-gate
tomder55
Apr 28, 2009, 06:36 AM
Scooter Libby got hounded by Prosecutor Inspector Javert Patrick Fitgerald for months and was eventually charged and went to jail because he forgot details of conversations with news jockies related to the "outing " of a James Bond wannabe Valerie Plame .
After he served some time and his appeal was denied ,President Bush commuted his sentence. Nancy Pelosi was outraged .
Speaker Nancy Pelosi | News Room | Press Releases (http://speaker.house.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0237)
Throughout this debate about the CIA interrogations and the release of the memos ,Pelosi has routinely denied that she was briefed . She has made contradictory statements and her story is in direct conflict with reporting from the Washington Compost that claims she was at a briefing ,along with California Dem Rep. Jane Harman ,Sens. Bob Graham, and Jay Rockefeller ,directly related to water boarding .Is her faulty memory any less of a criminal act than Libby's ?
The release of these memos has a bigger national security implication then finding out the name of a CIA desk jockey. Any investigation of this in all fairness should also include a dogged deposition ,if not direct testimony under oath of Speaker Pelosi to determine if she is lying about her knowledge and support of the interrogation techniques.
spitvenom
Apr 28, 2009, 06:39 AM
Anyone who knew about the torture and did not say something should be thrown in jail.
excon
Apr 28, 2009, 06:56 AM
Scooter Libby got hounded by Prosecutor Patrick Fitgerald for months and was eventually charged and went to jail because he forgot details of conversations . Is her faulty memory any less of a criminal act than Libby's ? Hello tom:
I just LOVE the right wing spin on things. You used to be better at it, though.
The FACTS are that Libby was convicted in court by a jury of his peers, for LYING under oath. Pelosi is in a "he said, she said", kind of thing, with NO proof of any wrongdoing on anybody's part... and you think they're the same...
Dude!
I DO think we should get to the bottom of it, though. Don't you? So instead of releasing particular memos that prove one thing or another, why don't we have a REAL investigation?
I KNOW why you don't want that. So does everybody else.
excon
excon
Apr 28, 2009, 07:00 AM
because he forgot details of conversations with news jockies related to the "outing " of a James Bond wannabe Valerie PlameHello again, tom:
The fact is, anyone who would compromise a CIA agent for political purposes should spend the rest of his life in jail.
Or, does your right wing twisted logic think it's fine to compromise CIA agents?? Don't answer. You don't have to.
excon
tomder55
Apr 28, 2009, 07:09 AM
At this point since the President irresponsilby released selective redacted memos the cat is already out of the bag. Let's have at it . Full scale no holds barred HONEST OPEN DEBATE about our national security in the last 20 years.
The left won't do that because they know the Clintonoids sent people to other countries that weren't bound by very specific restrictions on the techniques employed.
tomder55
Apr 28, 2009, 07:13 AM
Hello again, tom:
The fact is, anyone who would compromise a CIA agent for political purposes should spend the rest of his life in jail.
Still waiting for Richard Armitage's trial.. . (crickets chirping)
ETWolverine
Apr 28, 2009, 07:27 AM
Hello again, tom:
The fact is, anyone who would compromise a CIA agent for political purposes should spend the rest of his life in jail.
Or, does your right wing twisted logic think it's fine to compromise CIA agents??? Don't answer. You don't have to.
excon
So when is Obama's trial?
Or don't you believe that the release of the so-called "torture memos" compromised CIA agents and military personnel?
I know, I know... that's "different".
Scooter Libby wasn't convicted of revealing Plame's name to the press. He was convicted of obstruction in the investigation. There's no evidence he revealed Plame's name to anyone. In fact, it was Richard Armitage who revealed Plame's name to the press.
So now, back to the facts:
Pelosi has lied about what she knew and when regarding waterboarding. We have strong evidence of that. This is absolutely no different from what Libby was convicted for: lying about what he knew and when in the Plame affair.
So Tom's point is well-taken. What makes Pelosi any different from Libby? Why was he investigated, indicted, tried and convicted but not she? That is a fact.
But if you believe that Libby really is in jail for revealing info that endangered a CIA agent, why are we not investigating, indicting, trying and convicting Obama for doing the same thing with the torture memos?
Either way, the usual liberal double standard is in play.
Elliot
speechlesstx
Apr 28, 2009, 07:30 AM
Well then, let the investigations begin... and when Pelosi lies under oath she can be prosecuted for perjury just like Libby. And if she doesn't lie under oath you can join the immediate and thorough spin of the lies she's telling now.
Here's the thing, ex. Your concern may indeed be justice, but most people are not interested in prosecuting Bush and co. for any real crime. I'd bet large sums of money (if I had any large sums) that the rabid leftists pushing for this aren't either, it's all political BS and it's apparently being pushed and funded by George Soros (http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/28/soros-show-trials). These people don't care whether Bush is guilty of anything, they just want his head on a platter.
excon
Apr 28, 2009, 07:39 AM
Or don't you believe that the release of the so-called "torture memos" compromised CIA agents and military personnel?Hello El:
No, I don't see ANY compromise of the CIA by the release of the memos. Not even close..
But, is it similar to the "threat" I asked about below?? You conveniently DIDN'T answer me earlier. If it is, and I'll bet it is, then please explain.
excon
Hello again:
Help me out here, righty's. Now I'm a real intelligence type guy. I actually worked in intelligence when I served. So I know a little about it...
I can't figure out what intelligence distaster will unfold because Al Quaida knows what will happen to them if their caught... I'm having a real hard time with that. I can't believe that that information will do ANYTHING to embolden or strengthen their resolve, or do us harm in any way....
Please, tell me what that information does to a hardened Al Quaida warrior, and how whatever it does makes us more susceptible to attack or endangers our troops.
Now, I understand if they found out what our troop strength is, that would be bad. Or if they found out when we were going to attack them next, that would be bad...
But, I don't understand how it's bad that they know we're going to use enhanced interrogation techniques on them if we catch them. Can you explain it to me in ways I, as a former intelligence officer can understand?
If anything, it seems to me it would dissuade fighters from continuing.
It also seems evident that it's a recruiting tool that has put us and our troops in harms way...
You say no... But, if you were an Iraqi who was glad the US liberated him, as soon as you saw the pictures of Abu Grahib, you would have joined a resistance movement. Certainly, if you were a proud Iraqi, you would have. I would have. Steve, tom and the Wolverine would have. What makes you think an ordinary Iraqi won't do the same thing you would??
excon
tomder55
Apr 29, 2009, 02:29 PM
Here is Stratfor's take on the memos (in 2 parts... they don't take a position on enhanced intererogation... just on the effect of the released memos and the impact it will have on intel. )
Part 1
Over the past couple of weeks, we have been carefully watching the fallout from the Obama administration's decision to release four classified memos from former President George W. Bush's administration that authorized “enhanced interrogation techniques.” In a visit to CIA headquarters last week, President Barack Obama promised not to prosecute agency personnel who carried out such interrogations, since they were following lawful orders. Critics of the techniques, such as Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. have called for the formation of a “truth commission” to investigate the matter, and Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y. has called on Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a special prosecutor to launch a criminal inquiry into the matter.
Realistically, those most likely to face investigation and prosecution are those who wrote the memos, rather than the low-level field personnel who acted in good faith based upon the guidance the memos provided. Despite this fact and Obama's reassurances, our contacts in the intelligence community report that the release of the memos has had a discernible “chilling effect” on those in the clandestine service who work on counterterrorism issues.
In some ways, the debate over the morality of such interrogation techniques — something we do not take a position on and will not be discussing here — has distracted many observers from examining the impact that the release of these memos is having on the ability of the U.S. government to fulfill its counterterrorism mission. And this impact has little to do with the ability to use torture to interrogate terrorist suspects.
Politics and moral arguments aside, the end effect of the memos' release is that people who have put their lives on the line in U.S. counterterrorism efforts are now uncertain of whether they should be making that sacrifice. Many of these people are now questioning whether the administration that happens to be in power at any given time will recognize the fact that they were carrying out lawful orders under a previous administration. It is hard to retain officers and attract quality recruits in this kind of environment. It has become safer to work in programs other than counterterrorism.
The memos' release will not have a catastrophic effect on U.S. counterterrorism efforts. Indeed, most of the information in the memos was leaked to the press years ago and has long been public knowledge. However, when the release of the memos is examined in a wider context, and combined with a few other dynamics, it appears that the U.S. counterterrorism community is quietly slipping back into an atmosphere of risk-aversion and malaise — an atmosphere not dissimilar to that described by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission) as a contributing factor to the intelligence failures that led to the 9/11 attacks.
Cycles Within Cycles
In March we wrote about the cycle of counterterrorism funding and discussed indications that the United States is entering a period of reduced counterterrorism funding. This decrease in funding not only will affect defensive counterterrorism initiatives like embassy security and countersurveillance programs, but also will impact offensive programs such as the number of CIA personnel dedicated to the counterterrorism role.
Beyond funding, however, there is another historical cycle of booms and busts that can be seen in the conduct of American clandestine intelligence activities. There are clearly discernible periods when clandestine activities are deemed very important and are widely employed. These periods are inevitably followed by a time of investigations, reductions in clandestine activities and a tightening of control and oversight over such activities.
After the widespread employment of clandestine activities in the Vietnam War era, the Church Committee was convened in 1975 to review (and ultimately restrict) such operations. Former President Ronald Reagan's appointment of Bill Casey as director of the CIA ushered in a new era of growth as the United States became heavily engaged in clandestine activities in Afghanistan and Central America. Then, the revelation of the Iran-Contra affair in 1986 led to a period of hearings and controls.
There was a slight uptick in clandestine activities under the presidency of George H.W. Bush, but the fall of the Soviet Union led to another bust cycle for the intelligence community. By the mid-1990s, the number of CIA stations and bases was dramatically reduced (and virtually eliminated in much of Africa) for budgetary considerations. Then there was the case of Jennifer Harbury, a Harvard-educated lawyer who used little-known provisions in Texas common law to marry a dead Guatemalan guerrilla commander and gain legal standing as his widow. After it was uncovered that a CIA source was involved in the guerrilla commander's execution, CIA stations in Latin America were gutted for political reasons. The Harbury case also led to the Torricelli Amendment, a law that made recruiting unsavory people, such as those with ties to death squads and terrorist groups, illegal without special approval. This bust cycle was well documented by both the Crowe Commission, which investigated the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings, and the 9/11 Commission.
After the 9/11 attacks, the pendulum swung radically to the permissive side and clandestine activity was rapidly and dramatically increased as the U.S. sought to close the intelligence gap and quickly develop intelligence on al Qaeda's capability and plans. Developments over the past two years clearly indicate that the United States is once again entering an intelligence bust cycle, a period that will be marked by hearings, increased controls and a general decrease in clandestine activity.
Institutional Culture
It is also very important to realize that the counterterrorism community is just one small part of the larger intelligence community that is affected by this ebb and flow of covert activity. In fact, as noted above, the counterterrorism component of intelligence efforts has its own boom-and-bust cycle that is based on major attacks. Soon after a major attack, interest in counterterrorism spikes dramatically, but as time passes without a major attack, interest lags. Other than during the peak times of this cycle, counterterrorism is considered an ancillary program that is sometimes seen as an interesting side tour of duty, but more widely seen as being outside the mainstream career path — risky and not particularly career-enhancing. This assessment is reinforced by such events as the recent release of the memos.
At the CIA, being a counterterrorism specialist in the clandestine service means that you will most likely spend much of your life in places line Sanaa, Islamabad and Kabul instead of Vienna, Paris or London. This means that, in addition to hurting your chances for career advancement, your job also is quite dangerous, provides relatively poor living conditions for your family and offers the possibility of contracting serious diseases.
While being declared persona non grata and getting kicked out of a country as part of an intelligence spat is considered almost a badge of honor at the CIA, the threat of being arrested and indicted for participating in the rendition of a terrorist suspect from an allied country like Italy is not. Equally unappealing is being sued in civil court by a terrorist suspect or facing the possibility of prosecution after a change of government in the United States. Over the past few years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of CIA case officers who are choosing to carry personal liability insurance because they do not trust the agency and the U.S. government to look out for their best interests.
Now, there are officers who are willing to endure hardship and who do not really care much about career advancement, but for those officers there is another hazard — frustration. Aggressive officers dedicated to the counterterrorism mission quickly learn that many of the people in the food chain above them are concerned about their careers, and these superiors often take measures to rein in their less-mainstream subordinates. Additionally, due to the restrictions brought about by laws and regulations like the Torricelli Amendment, case officers working counterterrorism are often tightly bound by myriad legal restrictions.
Unlike in television shows like “24,” it is not uncommon in the real world for a meeting called to plan a counterterrorism operation to feature more CIA lawyers than case officers or analysts. These staff lawyers are intricately involved in the operational decisions made at headquarters, and legal issues often trump operational considerations. The need to obtain legal approval often delays decisions long enough for a critical window of operational opportunity to be slammed shut. This restrictive legal environment goes back many years in the CIA and is not a new fixture brought in by the Obama administration. There was a sense of urgency that served to trump the lawyers to some extent after 9/11, but the lawyers never went away and have reasserted themselves firmly over the past several years.
Of course, the CIA is not the only agency with a culture that is less than supportive of the counterterrorism mission. Although the prevention of terrorist attacks in the United States is currently the FBI's No. 1 priority on paper, the counterterrorism mission remains the bureau's redheaded stepchild. The FBI is struggling to find agents willing to serve in the counterterrorism sections of field offices, resident agencies (smaller offices that report to a field office) and joint terrorism task forces.
While the CIA was very much built on the legacy of Wild Bill Donovan's Office of Strategic Services, the FBI was founded by J. Edgar Hoover, a conservative and risk-averse administrator who served as FBI director from 1935-1972. Even today, Hoover's influence is clearly evident in the FBI's bureaucratic nature. FBI special agents are unable to do much at all, such as open an investigation, without a supervisor's approval, and supervisors are reluctant to approve anything too adventurous because of the impact it might have on their chance for promotion. Unlike many other law enforcement agencies, such as the Drug Enforcement Administration or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the FBI rarely uses its own special agents in an undercover capacity to penetrate criminal organizations. That practice is seen as being too risky; they prefer to use confidential informants rather than undercover operatives.
The FBI is also strongly tied to its roots in law enforcement and criminal investigation, and special agents who work major theft, public corruption or white-collar crime cases tend to receive more recognition — and advance more quickly — than their counterterrorism counterparts.
FBI special agents also see a considerable downside to working counterterrorism cases because of the potential for such cases to blow up in their faces if they make a mistake — such as in the New York field office's highly publicized mishandling of the informant whom they had inserted into the group that later conducted the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. It is much safer, and far more rewarding from a career perspective, to work bank robberies or serve in the FBI's Inspection Division.
After the 9/11 attacks — and the corresponding spike in the importance of counterterrorism operations — many of the resources of the CIA and FBI were focused on al Qaeda and terrorism, to the detriment of programs such as foreign counterintelligence. However, the more time that has passed since 9/11 without another major attack, the more the organizational culture of the U.S government has returned to normal. Once again, counterterrorism efforts are seen as being ancillary duties rather than the organizations' driving mission. (The clash between organizational culture and the counterterrorism mission is by no means confined to the CIA and FBI. Fred's book “Ghost: Confessions of a Counterterrorism Agent” provides a detailed examination of some of the bureaucratic and cultural challenges we faced while serving in the Counterterrorism Investigations Division of the State Department's Diplomatic Security Service.)
Liaison Services
One of the least well known, and perhaps most important, sources of intelligence in the counterterrorism field is the information that is obtained as a result of close relationships with allied intelligence agencies — often referred to as information obtained through “liaison channels.”
Like FBI agents, most CIA officers are well-educated, middle-aged white guys. This means they are better suited to use the cover of an American businessmen or diplomat than to pretend to be a young Muslim trying to join al Qaeda or Hezbollah. Like their counterparts in the FBI, CIA officers have far more success using informants than they do working undercover inside terrorist groups.
Services like the Jordanian General Intelligence Department, the Saudi Mabahith or the Yemeni National Security Agency not only can recruit sources, but also are far more successful in using young Muslim officers to penetrate terrorist groups. In addition to their source networks and penetration operations, many of these liaison services are not at all squeamish about using extremely enhanced interrogation techniques — this is the reason many of the terrorism suspects who were the subject of rendition operations ended up in such locations. Obviously, whenever the CIA is dealing with a liaison service, the political interests and objectives of the service must be considered — as should the possibility that the liaison service is fabricating the intelligence in question for whatever reason. Still, in the end, the CIA historically has received a significant amount of important intelligence (perhaps even most of its intelligence) via liaison channels.
Another concern that arises from the call for a truth commission is the impact a commission investigation could have on the liaison services that have helped the United States in its counterterrorism efforts since 9/11. Countries that hosted CIA detention facilities or were involved in the rendition or interrogation of terrorist suspects may find themselves exposed publicly or even held up for some sort of sanction by the U.S. Congress. Such activities could have a real impact on the amount of cooperation and information the CIA receives from these intelligence services.
tomder55
Apr 29, 2009, 02:30 PM
Part II
Conclusion
As we've previously noted, it was a lack of intelligence that helped fuel the fear that led the Bush administration to authorize enhanced interrogation techniques. Ironically, the current investigation into those techniques and other practices (such as renditions) may very well lead to significant gaps in terrorism-related intelligence from both internal and liaison sources — again, not primarily because of the prohibition of torture, but because of larger implications.
When these implications are combined with the long-standing institutional aversion of U.S. government agencies toward counterterrorism, and with the difficulty of finding and retaining good people willing to serve in counterterrorism roles, the U.S. counterterrorism community may soon be facing challenges even more daunting than those posed by its already difficult mission.
excon
Apr 29, 2009, 03:29 PM
Hello again, tom:
So, we're not going to be as safe because the CIA won't do it's job in the future?? Really?? They're just going to sit in their offices and let us swing? Well, like Reagan, Obama should fire the lot of 'em, and start over.
At least they don't have to worry about being "outed"!
excon
tomder55
Apr 30, 2009, 02:51 AM
That is the conclusion of Stratfor. Stratfor(Strategic Forecasting, Inc) is one of the most respected private intelligence agency in the country. I wish I could afford to be on their daily briefing list ,but that is above my pay grade.
There are actually large groups inside the agency that are very pleased with developments. They did not in fact like that they actually were asked to do their jobs . Their role model of intel gathering was demonstrated by Joe Wilson.
I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place
excon
Apr 30, 2009, 06:16 AM
There are actually large groups inside the agency that are very pleased with developments. They did not in fact like that they actually were asked to do their jobs . Hello again, tom:
Torturing is NOT what the job entails. What surprises me, is that there are agents in the CIA who DON'T know their jobs, just like it surprises me you righty's think torture is an American thing.
When I served, I knew my job. If I was given an illegal order, like to torture my prisoner, I would have refused.
I'm certain there were CIA who refused to break the law also. God bless 'em. Torturing is NOT one of the job requirements.
excon
ETWolverine
Apr 30, 2009, 07:33 AM
Hello again, tom:
Torturing is NOT what the job entails. What surprises me, is that there are agents in the CIA who DON'T know their jobs, just like it surprises me you righty's think torture is an American thing.
When I served, I knew my job. If I was given an illegal order, like to torture my prisoner, I would have refused.
I'm certain there were CIA who refused to break the law also. God bless 'em. Torturing is NOT one of the job requirements.
excon
Excon,
What is your alternative? You have prisoners of war that you know have information about impending attacks against US civilians. You don't know what thew attacks are going to look like, but you know they are coming. You have also lost thousands of people to prior attacks because there was a lack of information that you should have had, and you have been blamed for not knowing about those attacks.
You are on a timetable, but you don't know how much time you have left on that timetable. There are rumors of attacks to come, you are getting some ELINT that attacks are imminent, but you don't have any details. However, the POWs do have the information you need. How do you get the information from the POWs in time to do anything about these attacks before they occur?
A direct response would be appreciated. I don't want a list of what you wouldn't do. I don't want a diatribe about what you would have done differently BEFORE you got in this situation. This is the situation that the CIA and the military were faced with when they were doing these interrogations. You are in that situation now. You are in their shoes. Respond to it in an effective manner please. I want to know your solution to this situation.
And if you can't come up with a viable alternative, then perhaps you should leave it to the people who did manage just such a situation effectively and get off their backs for doing what you could not.
Elliot
excon
Apr 30, 2009, 08:00 AM
What is your alternative? You have prisoners of war that you know have information about impending attacks against US civilians. Hello again, El:
See?? This is when you guys actually lose your minds. Ordinarily, you're pretty sharp, but you missed this one. I think you MISS it, because you WANT to miss it, because you WANT to torture. So you turn to Jack Bauer. But, it's TV - not real life. Your scenario above is faulty.
Do you understand the word "know"?? I don't think you do, because you don't KNOW that your captive KNOWS anything. Frankly, if I knew that the captive did KNOW, I'd be for torturing him too.
But, of course, you DON'T know. You CAN'T know. You have no idea what's in his mind. If you did, you wouldn't need to torture him. Therefore, all you do is THINK the captive you have has information that could help... You SPECULATE. You GUESS. You HOPE. But, you don't KNOW.
Therefore, if you presented your scenerio properly, it would sound like this.
What is your alternative? You have prisoners of war that you THINK have information about impending attacks against US civilians. You don't know what thew attacks are going to look like, but you THINK they are coming. You have also lost thousands of people to prior attacks because there was a lack of information that you should have had, and you have been blamed for not knowing about those attacks.
Me? I wouldn't pull anybody's fingernails out unless I KNEW he KNEW something. But, in the REAL world, that just ain't going to happen.
excon
ETWolverine
Apr 30, 2009, 08:50 AM
Hello again, El:
See??? This is when you guys actually lose your minds. Ordinarily, you're pretty sharp, but you missed this one. I think you MISS it, because you WANT to miss it, because you WANT to torture. So you turn to Jack Bauer. But, it's TV - not real life. Your scenario above is faulty.
Do you understand the word "know"??? I don't think you do, because you don't KNOW that your captive KNOWS anything. Frankly, if I knew that the captive did KNOW, I'd be for torturing him too.
But, of course, you DON'T know. You CAN'T know. You have no idea what's in his mind. If you did, you wouldn't need to torture him. Therefore, all you do is THINK the captive you have has information that could help.... You SPECULATE. You GUESS. You HOPE. But, you don't KNOW.
Therefore, if you presented your scenerio properly, it would sound like this.
What is your alternative? You have prisoners of war that you THINK have information about impending attacks against US civilians. You don't know what thew attacks are going to look like, but you THINK they are coming. You have also lost thousands of people to prior attacks because there was a lack of information that you should have had, and you have been blamed for not knowing about those attacks.
Me? I wouldn't pull anybody's fingernails out unless I KNEW he KNEW something. But, in the REAL world, that just ain't gonna happen.
excon
That's a cop out, excon. And it is also untrue.
We knew that KSM had information we needed. He was one of their friggin' planners. He was one of their operational leaders. He had intimate knowledge of the operations of Al Qaeda because he helped plan them. He was one of only 5 people who knew the plans for the 9/11 attacks. So yes, we KNEW for a fact that he had operational information we needed.
Now... answer the question. You know attacks are coming. How do you get the info from KSM?
ETWolverine
Apr 30, 2009, 08:55 AM
Me? I wouldn't pull anybody's fingernails out unless I KNEW he KNEW something. But, in the REAL world, that just ain't gonna happen.
excon
So then you're saying that you would torture someone... even pull their fingernails... if you KNEW for a fact that they had info and you needed that info.
What kind of cruel animal are you?
How could you break your principals like that?
How could you violate the Constitutional rights of terrorists like that?
What kind of monster are you?
The only thing that is keeping you from being a murdering, torturing, fascist bastard war-criminal is the fact that you hide behind your so-called deniability of what you know the enemy knows. Otherwise you'd be setting up the fingerscrews right now.
You should be reported to the international courts and tried as a war criminal.
Elliot
excon
Apr 30, 2009, 09:15 AM
You should be reported to the international courts and tried as a war criminal.Hello El:
Sure, I'd torture him if I KNEW he KNEW something... But, if I KNEW that I was going to be in an accident last week, I wouldn't have left home.
But, I didn't know... Uhhh, what's your point?
Maybe I shouldn't ask you about the word "know". Maybe I should ask you about the word "if".
excon
ETWolverine
Apr 30, 2009, 09:25 AM
Hello El:
Sure, I'd torture him if I KNEW he KNEW something....
See there? You admitted it again. You are just a monster hiding behind what you can deny knowing about your enemies. You are in favor of turture when it suits your needs. How can you break your principals like that?
And that "what if" scenario is the exact scenario that the CIA interrogators were faced with. They didn't "think" KSM knew something. They KNEW he knew something. THEY were willing to admit that fact take the responsibility for what you refuse to take responsibility for by hiding behind your deniability. But even you have admitted that if you didn't have that deniability, you'd be right there with those interrogators, holding down KSM as they poured the water over his face.
Hope you feel secure in your deniability about our enemies and the moral superiority that springs from it.
Elliot
excon
Apr 30, 2009, 09:45 AM
How can you break your principals like that?Hello El:
The problem is, you don't understand the principle. It's a CORE American principle. I don't know how it could have escaped you - but it has..
Let me see if I can explain it this way: Given that I wouldn't break my principles unless I KNEW something, that I couldn't possibly ever know, I'd NEVER have to even consider breaking my principles. It's a built in safety net. In THAT world, we don't know things, until we know them..
I agree with you, in that people on your side don't often times HAVE those principles. Like prosecutors who "know" the guy is guilty, so they don't mind lying.. Like the cops who "know" a guy is guilty, so they don't mind planting evidence...
Oh, don't you worry. I'm hip to your kind.
excon
ETWolverine
Apr 30, 2009, 09:58 AM
Hello El:
The problem is, you don't understand the principle. It's a CORE American principle. I don't know how it could have escaped you - but it has..
Lemme see if I can explain it this way: Given that I wouldn't break my principles unless I KNEW something, that I couldn't possibly ever know, I'd NEVER have to even consider breaking my principles. It's a built in safety net. In THAT world, we don't know things, until we know them..
I agree with you, in that people on your side don't often times HAVE those principles. Like prosecutors who "know" the guy is guilty, so they don't mind lying.. Like the cops who "know" a guy is guilty, so they don't mind planting evidence...
Oh, don't you worry. I'm hip to your kind.
excon
I guess in your world soldiers plant evidence" on POWs just so they can torture them for $h!ts and giggles. I guess all the intelligence information gathered on KSM in the decades before he was captured was all planted on him because they knew that they would eventually be able to have the fun of waterboarding him for no reason whatsoever.
That's a strange world you live in. What color is the sky where you live?
I live on a planet called Earth, where people DO know things about other people and the information those people have based on intelligence gathered through other means. On Earth, KSM was a terrorist PLANNER... a guy who plans terrorist attacks and terrorist operations, and therefore would have direct knowledge of terrorist attacks and terrorist operations. Only on ExWorld do people think that a guy who plans terrorist attacks doesn't have any information about terrorist attacks.
Elliot
Skell
Apr 30, 2009, 04:51 PM
I live on a planet called Earth, where people DO know things about other people and the information those people have based on intelligence gathered through other means.
So just on these 'other means' you have used before to gather this intelligence? Tell me how come these other means (presumably not torture) can't be used to get the information that this bad guy supposedly knows? If your so called intelligence tells you this guy knows something , how come your intelligence can't tell you what it is he knows? You see where I'm coming from? Hence, if your intelligence can tell you what it is he knows, then there would be no need to ask him, right? No need torture him? You already know what he knows via intelligence using these other means. No?
Or is it just that you really hate these guys and want to torture them? Or is just that I am missing something? I know you'll say I am. :confused:
ETWolverine
May 1, 2009, 07:50 AM
So just on these 'other means' you have used before to gather this intelligence?? Tell me how come these other means (presumably not torture) can't be used to get the information that this bad guy supposedly knows? If your so called intelligence tells you this guy knows something , how come your intelligence can't tell you what it is he knows?? You see where im coming from? Hence, if your intelligence can tell you what it is he knows, then there would be no need to ask him, right? No need torture him? You already know what he knows via intelligence using these other means. No??
Or is it just that you really hate these guys and want to torture them? Or is just that I am missing something? I know you'll say i am. :confused:
Oftentimes, intelligence, especially HUMINT, can get you general information, but not the specifics you need. For instance, if the CIA planted a limo driver on KSM, the driver might be able to tell you who KSM met with (a bunch of terrorists) and what the general topic of the conversation was (how to attack the USA again), but he wouldn't be able to tell you the details (who the operatives would be, where the attacks would take place, when they would take place). Good, actionable intel, but not enough to stop the attack.
Or the NSA might pick up a snippet of a conversation by KSM on a cell phone or satellite phone, referring to "the plan" that will soon take place and how it will be "a great blow against the Great Satan". But they don't know what the plan is. Again, good intel, but not enough to stop an attack.
These are just hypothetical examples, of course, but that is how things work. Intelligence analysis, like financial analysis, is more art than science sometimes.
So we KNEW he had information from various sources. We needed that information. He wasn't about to give us that information.
So what do you do about it?
Elliot
excon
May 1, 2009, 07:56 AM
I guess in your world soldiers plant evidence" on POWs just so they can torture them for $h!ts and giggles. Hello again, El:
In my world, when HUGE rewards for Al Quaida are offered to very POOR people, certainly people were turned in for fun and profit.
Besides, our CIA doesn't need evidence. They are equal opportunity torturers.
excon
PS> You keep on saying you KNEW stuff, when you clearly didn't. You BELIEVED stuff, and based on that alone, you torture. But, speculation is NEVER enough reason to degrade yourself and your country.
ETWolverine
May 1, 2009, 08:06 AM
Hello again, El:
In my world, when HUGE rewards for Al Quaida are offered to very POOR people, certainly people were turned in for fun and profit.
Besides, our CIA doesn't need evidence. They are equal opportunity torturers.
excon
PS> You keep on saying you KNEW stuff, when you clearly didn't. You BELIEVE stuff, and based on that alone, you torture.
If I am told that a certain terrorist planner met with other terrorist planners and a bunch of terrorist operatives to discuss how to attack America, I think we can say that I KNOW that this terrorist planner has information that we need. It isn't supposition. It is a fact based on factual information.
Plus, there's the little inconvenient fact (for you) that KSM did turn out to have information that we needed and used to stop terrorist attacks. Not only did the intelligence guys know that KSM have information, they were also correct AND effective at getting that information.
I seem to remember you saying (on gay marriage, I believe) that you didn't care what the means were by which a particular conclusion came to be, it was the result that mattered. It didn't matter if the conclusion was Unconstitutional, based on incorrect interpretations of the law, or set precedents that were dangerous. It was the ends that mattered.
Not in this case, though... I wonder why. (Not really. I already know why.)
Elliot
excon
May 1, 2009, 08:11 AM
If I am told that a certain terrorist planner met with other terrorist planners and a bunch of terrorist operatives to discuss how to attack America, I think we can say that I KNOW Hello again, El:
See this is the point you miss. The credibility of the person who TOLD you IS important. The fact that you were told isn't.
excon
ETWolverine
May 1, 2009, 08:20 AM
Correct. The CIA has to determine what sources are credible and which are not. They can do that through multiple-source corroborations. That's actually the best way to do it. They can do it through historical evidence... how many times has that source been correct in the past? How many times has it been wrong? They can do it through electronic intelligence, a conversation by the subject of the interrogation in question to his mom in which he mentions to her to keep an eye on the TV for "big happeneings" around a specific date. There are lots of ways to corroborate intelligence information. The CIA uses all of them.
You will notice that they didn't waterboard EVERYONE held at Gitmo. Seems to me that they only did so with guys that they KNEW had information they needed, based on intelligence gained through other means and properly corroborated.
They KNEW that KSM had the info. You just don't want to admit that, because then you would have to admit you were wr-r-r-... wr-r-r-r... not right.
Elliot
speechlesstx
May 13, 2009, 09:02 AM
Now that more and more is coming out about what Pelosi and other Democrats knew, the Dems in are whining that the CIA is out to get them (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22439.html). Waaa!
http://standupforamerica.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/democratic_crybaby_seal.jpg
tomder55
May 13, 2009, 09:23 AM
Last I heard :Leon Panetta ran the agency .
That is hilarious in light of the way Dem. Shadow warriors in the agency undermined Bush foreign policy ,and through timed leaks, tried to influence the 2004 election.
ETWolverine
May 13, 2009, 09:52 AM
I think that Pelosi is 100% correct. THe CIA IS out to get the Dems.
But what the hell did she think was going to happen when she and her cronies decided to throw the CIA under the bus in order to show the world their "shock" at the Republican party?
In order to paint the GOP as a bunch of torturers and evil maniacs, she needed to paint the CIA with the same feather for following Bush's orders. And while many in the CIA don't like Bush, they'll be damned if they're going to go down in order to make Pelosi look good. So they're fighting back.
So, yeah, it's a witch-hunt. But the hunt was started by Pelosi and her cronies. Pelosi lied, and the CIA guys are going to use that to defend themselves, and if Pelosi goes down, so be it.
She SHOULD'A kept her big mouth shut. But she is constitutionally incapable of doing so.
Elliot
spitvenom
May 13, 2009, 09:54 AM
Hey if she knew and now is trying to save her @$$ then she is no better then the people doing the torture. I always get an uneasy feeling when I see her.
excon
May 13, 2009, 10:21 AM
Hello again,
The entire thrust of this thread, is to excuse torture because Madame Pelosi knew about it. That's patently ridiculous.
There are a LOT of apologists out there. Let 'em ALL swing in the wind. Torture is illegal. It's a war crime. Everybody who was complicit in it, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
excon
spitvenom
May 13, 2009, 10:30 AM
Hello again,
The entire thrust of this thread, is to excuse torture because Madame Pelosi knew about it. That's patently ridiculous.
There are a LOT of apologists out there. Let 'em ALL swing in the wind. Torture is illegal. It's a war crime. Everybody who was complicit in it, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
excon
I agree
speechlesstx
May 13, 2009, 10:43 AM
Hello again,
The entire thrust of this thread, is to excuse torture because Madame Pelosi knew about it. That's patently ridiculous.
There are a LOT of apologists out there. Let 'em ALL swing in the wind. Torture is illegal. It's a war crime. Everybody who was complicit in it, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
excon
Not to me. To me it's about making the unbelievable hypocrisy of Democrats like Pelosi stick. They start a witch hunt, lie about their own involvement and cry foul when it comes back to haunt them while the MSM plays CYA on their behalf. The truth is more than Republicans are ruthless torturers.
tomder55
May 13, 2009, 10:53 AM
Schumer has said he wants prosecutions also .
But ,when the memory of 9-11 was fresh in his mind he said this :
And I'd like to interject a note of balance here. There are times when we all get in high dudgeon. We ought to be reasonable about this. I think there are probably very few people in this room or in America who would say that torture should never, ever be used, particularly if thousands of lives are at stake.
Take the hypothetical: If we knew that there was a nuclear bomb hidden in an American city and we believed that some kind of torture, fairly severe maybe, would give us a chance of finding that bomb before it went off, my guess is most Americans and most senators, maybe all, would say, Do what you have to do.
So it's easy to sit back in the armchair and say that torture can never be used. But when you're in the foxhole, it's a very different deal.
Going After Gonzales by Byron York on National Review Online (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzRhZmM1NmUyYTNiYWRjMmY1ZDk5NDUwMmFkMmJlZjQ)=
Now none of the approved techniques reaches the level of torture ,let alone fairly severe torture. But this illustrates the mind set of both parties in Congress when the attacks were still fresh in everyone's mind.
450donn
May 13, 2009, 10:59 AM
Hello again,
The entire thrust of this thread, is to excuse torture because Madame Pelosi knew about it.
excon
How many girls is "madam" scar face running these days EC?
ETWolverine
May 13, 2009, 12:50 PM
How many girls is "madam" scar face running these days EC?
I don't know. But excon used the term "Madame", not "madam".
The first is a term of polite address for a French woman. (Not that Pelosi is French, but it is still a term of polite address.)
The second has two meanings. The first is a formal address of a woman, especially a married woman. The second one is a term for a woman who owns or runs a brothel.
The question, 450donn, is why you automatially assumed that excon meant that Pelosi is a brothel manager? Granted she leads the House of Representatives, and a bigger house of whores I've never seen (unless it's the Senate). But still, that was not excon's intent, nor was it the specific term he used. So why did you assume it?
galveston
May 13, 2009, 01:42 PM
Seems I remember that the Clinton adm. Effectively emasculated the intelligence apparatus, and then we got hit by the 9/11 attack.
Now we are going to go back and do it all over again, I guess.
And oh yeah, Clinton also weakened our military. And Obama wants to cut the defence budjet.
We never learn, do we?
ETWolverine
May 13, 2009, 01:51 PM
I agree, Gal. It seems that in this era of increased spending, massive budget shortfalls, and overwhelming national debt, the ONLY place that the government is cutting spending is in the military.
Elliot
tomder55
May 15, 2009, 03:09 AM
IBD editorialized today wondering why Pelosi is lying about being briefed by the CIA :
Why is she doing this? Her fast-evaporating political power. Democrats won both the presidency and the Congress she leads, but neither are, like her, a San Francisco Democrat with a far-left political base. Many Dems are showing signs of pragmatism about key issues, sometimes rethinking old positions.
None wants Gitmo terrorists walking around their districts. Most care about recovery and understand how free trade will help. They have questions about the impact of cap-and-trade on the economy. They know voters don't want to be forced into unions with card check. They wonder what health care nationalization will cost.
Pelosi's effort to say she was never briefed by the CIA on interrogations is nothing but an effort to keep the old anti-Bush craziness of her heyday alive among Democrats. That's the premise of her tawdry little lie over events that occurred nearly a decade ago — and it's happening because she is losing power.
Once Pelosi's lie is exposed, the fallout will likely widen the gulf between herself and her fellow Democrats. That opens the door to a challenge to her speakership from a political rival.
House leaders like Steny Hoyer already are making maneuvers consistent with that. If he succeeds, we may see sanity return to the Democratic Party.
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Flailing In Quicksand (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=327192861252655)
excon
May 15, 2009, 05:51 AM
Hello tom:
Excon wondered today, why the CIA is lying about briefing congress. He wonders this, because he has a long memory, contrary to the torturers.
excon
tomder55
May 15, 2009, 06:01 AM
The funny thing about "torture " is that those who claim that it's use elicits lies are correct . Madame Mimi is exhibit A .
Her problem is that she does not want to admit that when the real options were presented she actually for a fleeting moment acted like a real national leader .The approval of aggressive interrogation was the best means of obtaining the information needed to keep the nation safe. She knew it ;everyone briefed knew it.
The only one who wavered was Jane Harmon . She wrote a CYA letter to herself about it and released it when people began to Monday morning quarterback.
tomder55
May 15, 2009, 06:05 AM
Ex are all the people who attended the briefings also lying when they say the CIA spelled it out ?
Are you aware that much of the footnotes to the 9-11 commission report related to AQ was obtained during these interogations ,and that 9-11 Commission lawyers even asked the CIA to do follow-up interrogations ?
excon
May 15, 2009, 06:10 AM
Ex are all the people who attended the briefings also lying when they say the CIA spelled it out ? ?Hello again, tom:
I'm willing to listen to THEM, under oath. I'm NOT willing to listen to what OTHERS say they're going to say.
Let's get the investigations underway, so we can throw the liars and torturers in JAIL where they belong.
excon
tomder55
May 15, 2009, 06:31 AM
The problem is that it is clowns like Pelosi that are in charge of the proceedings . There is no chance at all that fairness will be introduced into the equation. Obama ,Holder ,Conyers ,Leahy and Pelosi have already signaled they intend to conduct Stalinist purges instead of impartial investigations and hearings.