|
Bombshell? Probably not, but it will be interesting if the media keeps pressing if anything else will surface. This centers around Pelosi saying the CIA gave her faulty information regarding Waterboarding and if it had performed the technique on suspected terrorists. Which would be regarded as torture under International, and U.S. laws.
July 8 (Bloomberg) -- Six Democrats on the U.S. House Intelligence Committee said the head of the CIA admitted the agency misled Congress since 2001 about “significant actions.”
The lawmakers’ letter said Panetta’s recent testimony disclosed concealment by the CIA that is “similar to other deceptions of which we are aware from other recent periods.” The intelligence committee regularly receives private briefings from U.S. officials.
Full Article
+ Show Spoiler +
July 8 (Bloomberg) -- Six Democrats on the U.S. House Intelligence Committee said the head of the CIA admitted the agency misled Congress since 2001 about “significant actions.”
In a letter to CIA Director Leon Panetta, the six members said he had “recently” testified that “top CIA officials have concealed significant actions from all members of Congress” and “misled members” from 2001 until this week.
The letter, released today, didn’t describe what CIA actions were at issue. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Republicans have been feuding over her claim that the CIA misled Congress in 2002 about harsh interrogations of suspected terrorists.
The letter called on Panetta to “publicly correct” his May 15 statement that “it is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress.”
Separately, the House committee’s chairman, Democrat Silvestre Reyes of Texas, said in a statement tonight that “in rare instances’’ CIA officers “have not adhered to the high standards’’ that the agency sets for “truthfulness in reporting’’ to Congress.
Praise for Panetta
Reyes, who wasn’t among the six lawmakers who signed the letter to Panetta, praised the CIA chief’s “recent efforts to bring issues to the committee’s attention’’ that “had not been previously conveyed’’ to it.
Reyes was blunter in a July 7 letter to the panel’s top Republican, saying that the CIA had lied to the committee at least once.
Information Panetta gave the panel June 24 “brought to light significant information on the inadequacy of reporting to the committee,’’ Reyes wrote to Representative Pete Hoekstra of Michigan.
The information provided by Panetta “led me to conclude that this committee has been misled, has not been provided full and complete notification and (in at least once case) was affirmatively lied to,’’ Reyes said in a letter, first reported by Congressional Quarterly.
The disclosures came on the eve of a scheduled House debate on an intelligence spending measure. It would expand the number of lawmakers who must be notified of covert intelligence operations from eight congressional leaders to more than 35 members of House and Senate intelligence panels.
Pelosi’s Charge
In May, Pelosi charged that when she was a member of the House intelligence panel, the spy agency gave her misleading and inaccurate information whether it had waterboarded suspected terrorists. The CIA has acknowledged that it used the interrogation technique on three detainees suspected of being al-Qaeda operatives to simulate the sensation of drowning.
House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio has challenged Pelosi to either produce evidence to support her claim or retract her assertion that the CIA “misrepresented every step of the way” its use of harsh interrogation techniques on suspected terrorists.
The lawmakers’ letter said Panetta’s recent testimony disclosed concealment by the CIA that is “similar to other deceptions of which we are aware from other recent periods.” The intelligence committee regularly receives private briefings from U.S. officials.
CIA spokesman George Little said in a statement that Panetta “stands by his May 15 statement” because “it is not the policy or practice of the CIA to mislead Congress” and that “Director Panetta’s actions back that up.”
The agency went to the panel with the new information, the agency’s statement said.
“As the letter from these six representatives notes, it was the CIA that took the initiative to notify the oversight committees,” Little said.
The letter was signed by Democrats Anna Eshoo of California, John Tierney of Massachusetts, Rush Holt of New Jersey, Mike Thompson of California, Alcee Hastings of Florida and Jan Schakowsky of Illinois.
To contact the reporter on this story: James Rowley in Washington at jarowley@bloomberg.net .
Source, Source
|
Seems obvious now, but it's good they came clean.
This whole waterboarding issue needs to wrap up though, we either need to punish the people who knew about it/ordered it, not punish them, or move on. Why does it take so long to investigate and decide what happened and what to do?
|
oh god.
inc massive political debate.
Thanks for the headsup *puts on armor* this could get interesting.
|
so wait whats the problem with waterboarding? am i missing something here because from what i read its harmless
|
On July 09 2009 14:58 daz wrote: so wait whats the problem with waterboarding? am i missing something here because from what i read its harmless
Lol, you read wrong. It can't exactly be harmless if it counts as torture. And......... there's the problem with it, it's torture.
|
On July 09 2009 14:58 daz wrote: so wait whats the problem with waterboarding? am i missing something here because from what i read its harmless
It's harmless if you dont mind people making you feel like you're going to drown in order to extract information from you that you may or may not have after being detained without question.
|
but it doesnt do any actual physical damage amirite? thats really what i meant. tbh if it isnt doing any actual physical harm i really dont see the problem. I mean like what are the alternatives to waterboarding? Like if you capture some terrorist and you need to extract information from him, what are your options? 1. real torture 2. waterboarding 3. asking politely.
I think waterboarding is a clear winner there
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina1437 Posts
On July 09 2009 15:16 daz wrote: but it doesnt do any actual physical damage amirite? thats really what i meant. tbh if it isnt doing any actual physical harm i really dont see the problem. I mean like what are the alternatives to waterboarding? Like if you capture some terrorist and you need to extract information from him, what are your options? 1. real torture 2. waterboarding 3. asking politely.
I think waterboarding is a clear winner there
Drowning people isn't torture?
|
On July 09 2009 14:58 daz wrote: so wait whats the problem with waterboarding? am i missing something here because from what i read its harmless
you should watch a few youtube videos of people volunteering to be waterboarded. None of them last more than 15seconds before panicing and demanding to stop. Seems like torture to me.
|
On July 09 2009 15:16 daz wrote: but it doesnt do any actual physical damage amirite? thats really what i meant. tbh if it isnt doing any actual physical harm i really dont see the problem. I mean like what are the alternatives to waterboarding? Like if you capture some terrorist and you need to extract information from him, what are your options? 1. real torture 2. waterboarding 3. asking politely.
I think waterboarding is a clear winner there
It could do damage. They admitted to having a doctor present at every situation. Any form of interrogation where a doctor is present means that there is physical harm capabilities. You can literally choke to death if done for an extended period of time (read: still less then a minute)
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina1437 Posts
Because you actually are drowning them... Yes their is a small amount of physical damage done and A LOT of mental damage.. not sure if I said that right.. im high. also I can tell your a republican just to point that out.. amirite?
|
On July 09 2009 15:16 daz wrote: but it doesnt do any actual physical damage amirite? thats really what i meant. tbh if it isnt doing any actual physical harm i really dont see the problem. I mean like what are the alternatives to waterboarding? Like if you capture some terrorist and you need to extract information from him, what are your options? 1. real torture 2. waterboarding 3. asking politely.
I think waterboarding is a clear winner there
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=93858
----- here's a (bad) example which I'm randomly trying to think of: waterboarding -> drowning as tasing -> electrocuting
sure it "might not" kill you, but I wouldn't want to be tased or waterboarded repeatedly regardless. You'd probably be begging for death after that.
|
On July 09 2009 15:16 daz wrote: but it doesnt do any actual physical damage amirite? thats really what i meant. tbh if it isnt doing any actual physical harm i really dont see the problem. I mean like what are the alternatives to waterboarding? Like if you capture some terrorist and you need to extract information from him, what are your options? 1. real torture 2. waterboarding 3. asking politely.
I think waterboarding is a clear winner there
there are actually a bunch of youtube videos of people subjecting themselves to waterboarding (such as Christopher Hitchens). it's absolutely horrific.
if you don't want to go watch youtube videos, here's a good way to think of it: imagine if someone injected you with some serum that causes your nervous system to misreact and you literally felt like you were on fire. You'd writhe in agony and try to find some way to put it out, but nothing would work, the pain would continue until the serum ran out. again, even though there's no "physical damage" being causes by the "fire serum" i just described, its inflicting significant pain on the victim.
in fact, things like the imaginary "fire serum" and waterboarding are actually MUCH worse than torture that inflicts "actual physical damage" because the torturers can continue the procedure indefinitely without any worry of you dying. i can't imagine how awful it must be knowing that you'd be subjected to long periods of waterboarding DAILY until you gave some piece of information.
imagine if you were innocent and didn't actually know anything! eesh! :[
|
I don't even see why the fuck all this "torture" qualification shit matters
we should be treating all prisoners HUMANELY
now there may be certain exceptions where getting information is clearly going to save lives and we know the information is there, but these were not the cases in which waterboarding was being used
|
seems that waterboarding is a lot worse then i thought, so i can see why people have a problem with it. I guess to me it depends on the situation, honestly, if we take a situation like the 'war on terrorism' where there is so much covert activity, and a country like the states has to protect its own citizens and interests, i fully expect them to use torture and i honestly cant even imagine any other scenario regardless of whether its right or wrong.
Take this situation for example, lets imagine the CIA in pakistan captures some high level al-qeida (no idea how to spell this) dude. Now this dude is obviously going to have a lot of information about what his group is doing, information about future planned terrorist attacks, and the CIA having this information would be able to prevent attacks and save lives of their citizens, as well as potentially capture other enemies. Now in this situation i dont even think its a question of what to do, in fact i would say they are OBLIGATED to do whatever is necessary to gain this information as this is their main purpose. I've never understood what is that people get all up in arms about, this is how intelligence works, every country does this, every group, faction, you name it, its pretty much unavoidable. Its not even realistic or reasonable to expect otherwise.
Now that being said, the obvious problem is if you give any groups the right to torture, especially groups who are obligated to hide information from the public, how do you then guarantee that torture is only being used in the "right" circumstances? Of course there is no way to guarantee it, but at the same time you cant blanket ban it and say "even if this person holds information that would have a huge impact on the interests of our country, we will not cause him any pain or anguish because that would be wrong." This would be an insane way to conduct affairs.
I could write another few pages elaborating on this but its already a wall of text so ill just leave it there, and if anything doesnt make sense ill clarify upon request
edit: Lol no im not a republican in fact i hate republican. In fact i hate most political ideological groups because most of them are bullshit. I dont fully agree with every policy of any party i have yet to encounter, but if i had to say something i would say i lean much more towards liberalism on most issues
|
On July 09 2009 15:16 daz wrote: but it doesnt do any actual physical damage amirite? thats really what i meant. tbh if it isnt doing any actual physical harm i really dont see the problem. I mean like what are the alternatives to waterboarding? Like if you capture some terrorist and you need to extract information from him, what are your options? 1. real torture 2. waterboarding 3. asking politely.
I think waterboarding is a clear winner there
Watch the countless videos about this. One of the more effective ways of interrogating our enemies is to be nice to them. A majority of them were raised and lead to believe that America (and her allies) are cruel, terrible people. You might be surprised the kind of information you get once they realize this simply isnt true.
Sure, some of them are batshit insane and there is nothign you can do about it. But do some research, you might be surprised.
edit: Yes i said 'you might be surprised' twice.
|
daz a problem is there is/was no clear basis for deciding who should be "interrogated"
oh, u clearly don't. so nm that
so anyways I still don't think torture is the right way to extract information.
hell, I think bribing them and letting them go is a preferrable method. if they don't respond to that they probably aren't going to respond to torture either.
|
On July 09 2009 15:44 HuskyTheHusky wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2009 15:16 daz wrote: but it doesnt do any actual physical damage amirite? thats really what i meant. tbh if it isnt doing any actual physical harm i really dont see the problem. I mean like what are the alternatives to waterboarding? Like if you capture some terrorist and you need to extract information from him, what are your options? 1. real torture 2. waterboarding 3. asking politely.
I think waterboarding is a clear winner there Watch the countless videos about this. One of the more effective ways of interrogating our enemies is to be nice to them. A majority of them were raised and lead to believe that America (and her allies) are cruel, terrible people. You might be surprised the kind of information you get once they realize this simply isnt true. Sure, some of them are batshit insane and there is nothign you can do about it. But do some research, you might be surprised. edit: Yes i said 'you might be surprised' twice.
it wouldnt surprise me at all that most of these people have been brainwashed to believing ridiculous things, especially in the case of islamic terrorists since they are a religious group and religion is practically impossible without brainwashing, but i would be INCREDIBLY surprised if you could actually get any of these people to "realize" that the beliefs they've held strongly enough to kill people over for their entire lives aren't true.
|
On July 09 2009 15:47 travis wrote: daz a problem is there is/was no clear basis for deciding who should be "interrogated"
oh, u clearly don't. so nm that
so anyways I still don't think torture is the right way to extract information.
hell, I think bribing them and letting them go is a preferrable method. if they don't respond to that they probably aren't going to respond to torture either.
i dont get the first part of this post but as for the part about bribing them that actually sounds reasonable and is probably correct but if i was some CIA dude i wouldnt be willing to risk 'national security' on it
|
yeah the first part was part of a larger post, but i realized i missed part of yours and i edited most of it out
|
|
|
|