• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CIA Says Pelosi Was Briefed on Use of 'Enhanced Interrogations'

This is a circle argument. People who want Bush and Cheney nailed for waterboarding, are not making sense. If waterboarding was not stoppped when Congress knew it was being used in certain cases, how can Pelosi bring it up now? She stepped on a hornet in her bare feet and she is paying for it, as she should be.

Because no matter what congress knew it was still illegal. Also the president doesnt want Bush and Cheney nailed for waterboarding Cheney does. He wishes to advance his principles. It really isnt an arguement of engaging in torture because when the chips are all on the line then presidents and head officials have to make descision and then live with their demons. Its simply Cheney is trying to make it the normal practice and he is advocating for torture he has to be met by the opposition because we have already agreed that torture is not the path we wish to go down.

Nancy Pelosi was in 1 meeting as opposed to ALL that Bush and Cheney engaged in. And they are taking the 1 meeting not even a year after 9/11 we all gave Bush rope because we didnt know what was to come. But Bush and cheney took it as a sign that we can change the laws to institute torture that is the real problem I believe. Not the torture but trying to make torture who we are and we should use it in every case meaning when it fails we have no other options because we have settled on the last resort being the only one.
 
Because no matter what congress knew it was still illegal. Also the president doesnt want Bush and Cheney nailed for waterboarding Cheney does. He wishes to advance his principles. It really isnt an arguement of engaging in torture because when the chips are all on the line then presidents and head officials have to make descision and then live with their demons. Its simply Cheney is trying to make it the normal practice and he is advocating for torture he has to be met by the opposition because we have already agreed that torture is not the path we wish to go down.

Nancy Pelosi was in 1 meeting as opposed to ALL that Bush and Cheney engaged in. And they are taking the 1 meeting not even a year after 9/11 we all gave Bush rope because we didnt know what was to come. But Bush and cheney took it as a sign that we can change the laws to institute torture that is the real problem I believe. Not the torture but trying to make torture who we are and we should use it in every case meaning when it fails we have no other options because we have settled on the last resort being the only one.

You're welcome, for your first "Thank you".

Welcome aboard.
 
You know Pelosi probably wasn't initially concerned because there's a group of people in San Francisco that probably don't think the EITs sound all that bad. They probably figure that the feeling of drowning is similar to having something caught in your throat. :lol:
 
It looks like Nancy Pelosi is in pretty hot water. If she were to resign, who would take her place? Would the person who replaces her in Congress replace her as Speaker of the House, or an elected person chosen by the House of Representatives?

It would be a Democrat.
More then likely the current Majority Leader in the House. Rep. Steny Hoyer(D)

He and other likely candidates should start prepping to take over her role.
 
You know Pelosi probably wasn't initially concerned because there's a group of people in San Francisco that probably don't think the EITs sound all that bad. They probably figure that the feeling of drowning is similar to having something caught in your throat. :lol:
Hell, there's clubs in San Francisco that charge for that sort of thing. New York, too, or so I've heard.
 
May 15, 2009
White House Dodges Question About Pelosi

FOX News' Major Garrett was the first and only reporter to ask Press Secretary Robert Gibbs what the White House's reaction is to Nancy Pelosi's accusation that the C.I.A. lied to her. Gibbs said President Obama is "keeping the American people safe by looking forward." Garrett reminded Gibbs this is a serious matter, leading Gibbs to respond that he will not "R.S.V.P" to get involved.
RealClearPolitics - Video - White House Dodges Question About Pelosi
(vid at link)

The first and ONLY?
Thats a pretty big damnation of the WH Press Corps.




Panetta comments to CIA workers after Pelosi's garbage-

"There is a long tradition in Washington of making political hay out of our business. It predates my service with this great institution, and it will be around long after I'm gone. But the political debates about interrogation reached a new decibel level yesterday when the CIA was accused of misleading Congress," CIA Director Leon Panetta wrote in a letter publicly released.

"My advice -- indeed, my direction -- to you is straightforward: ignore the noise and stay focused on your mission. We have too much work to do to be distracted from our job of protecting this country," he wrote. "We are an agency of high integrity, professionalism, and dedication. Our task is to tell it like it is-even if that's not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it."
Panetta Urges CIA Staff to Focus on Mission, Tune Out 'New Decibel Level' in D.C. on Interrogations - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com
 
Last edited:
Gingrich-
"I think she has lied to the House, and I think that the House has an absolute obligation to open an inquiry, and I hope there will be a resolution to investigate her. And I think this is a big deal. I don't think the Speaker of the House can lie to the country on national security matters,”
..
"Speaker Pelosi's the big loser, because she either comes across as incompetent, or dishonest. Those are the only two defenses,” Gingrich said. “The fact is she either didn't do her job, or she did do her job and she's now afraid to tell the truth.”
Gingrich: Pelosi 'Lied,' 'Despicable,' 'Dishonest,' 'Vicious,' 'Trivial' - The Note
(Audio at end of article)
 
Gingrich-

Gingrich:

Gingrich? Gingrich. Gingrich. Gingrich. Sounds familiar...

Didn't they boot a Gingrich out of Washington back when Clinton was in office? Something about him embarrassing the Repubs? ;)
 
Well we know you'll agree with Far Left Star Chuck Schumer!

I'd like to interject a note of balance here ...

I think there are probably very few people in this room or in America who would say that torture should never be used, particularly if thousands of lives are at stake. Take the hypothetical: If we knew 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 that most Americans and most senators, maybe all, would say:

'Do what you have to do.' "
PRUDEN: Lady's got ants in her pants - Washington Times


But as the last line in the article it comes from says---
But that was in 2004, before common sense in the party of FDR, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy suffered grievous wounds.
 
Gingrich? Gingrich. Gingrich. Gingrich. Sounds familiar...

Didn't they boot a Gingrich out of Washington back when Clinton was in office? Something about him embarrassing the Repubs? ;)
You're our embarrassment....you're our Gingrich.
 
Pewwww, what's that smell? Something died in here....oh, it's ADK.
 
When it comes to a choice between the civil rights of a suspected terrorist and the imperative to gather essential information that can save even a few lives of innocent civilians. I come down on the side of saving lives. I go even farther by saying the tactics used is not the business of the public and to divulge it is to invite more extremist acts of terror. I do believe there is a limit to the use of torture but I believe the use of drugs is humane and has no lasting effects. I go another step and say that it should be widely known that if convicted of and act of terror the guilty party will be hung with in 14 days and the body wrapped in pig skin and buried in an unmarked grave.
In the 1800s in India a rumour spread that its cartridges were greased with pig and cow fat, thus offending both Muslims and Hindus. In February 1857 the 19th (Bengal Native) Infantry refused to use the cartridges. They were quickly disbanded but their actions were to spark a chain of similar events through central and northern India.
The threat alone is enough to dissuade fanatics who believe they will not go to their final reward because they would be defiled after death.
It's not torture and as to disrespectful? Who cares if it saves lives and the so-called defiled is a murderer. Oh yes in the case of bombers we gather the pieces and put then in a bag made of raw pig skin.
If this offends you then don't be a terrorist, and or stop being a terrorist sympathizer.
 
Because no matter what congress knew it was still illegal. Also the president doesnt want Bush and Cheney nailed for waterboarding Cheney does. He wishes to advance his principles. It really isnt an arguement of engaging in torture because when the chips are all on the line then presidents and head officials have to make descision and then live with their demons. Its simply Cheney is trying to make it the normal practice and he is advocating for torture he has to be met by the opposition because we have already agreed that torture is not the path we wish to go down.

Nancy Pelosi was in 1 meeting as opposed to ALL that Bush and Cheney engaged in. And they are taking the 1 meeting not even a year after 9/11 we all gave Bush rope because we didnt know what was to come. But Bush and cheney took it as a sign that we can change the laws to institute torture that is the real problem I believe. Not the torture but trying to make torture who we are and we should use it in every case meaning when it fails we have no other options because we have settled on the last resort being the only one.

Can you produce the law that said waterboarding was illegal at the time it was used? Thanks in advance.
 
Oh yes in the case of bombers we gather the pieces and put then in a bag made of raw pig skin.
If this offends you then don't be a terrorist, and or stop being a terrorist sympathizer.

Thats pretty good.
 
Can you produce the law that said waterboarding was illegal at the time it was used? Thanks in advance.
That's funny. Seems like we dealt with this a few pages back. Simply using the justice department to make a legal opinion that waterboarding is not torture but rather, enhanced interrogation techniques, doesn't make it legal. Waterboarding was considered torture before and after lil shrubs admin and torture is illegal, therefore waterboarding is illegal. Basically they created a loop hole in order to do something illegal.
 
Slippery simply doesn't comprehend that proving a criminal case is about facts and not labels.

There are specific elements to a crime.

You have to prove each one with the specific facts of the case.

That "waterboarding" was supposedly found to be "torture" at some other point in the past does not mean that the specific facts of the case at hand fulfill the elements of the crime. It only means that the facts of past cases fit the elements of the crime on that day in the past.

And no amount of angry, forceful bluster changes that. Wind is just wind.
 
Slippery simply doesn't comprehend that proving a criminal case is about facts and not labels.

There are specific elements to a crime.

You have to prove each one with the specific facts of the case.

That "waterboarding" was supposedly found to be "torture" at some other point in the past does not mean that the specific facts of the case at hand fulfill the elements of the crime. It only means that the facts of past cases fit the elements of the crime on that day in the past.

And no amount of angry, forceful bluster changes that. Wind is just wind.

How utterly ridiculous. As was shown in a previous analogy, a government official cannot simply change a law or an aspect of the law so that they can do something normally considered illegal. A governor, for example, can't have his legal team put together a legal opinion that says, stabbing someone to death with a pencil is not really murder because a pencil is a writing tool. Then stab someone to death with a pencil and claim they are not guilty of murder because they used a pencil.
 
Back
Top Bottom