Can anyone please explain what this is about ?
This article might help explain things a little:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5/15/AR2009051502743.html?hpid=topnews&sub=AR
Can anyone please explain what this is about ?
Can anyone please explain what this is about ?
I guess a pass from the purge that is going to come when all warcrimes are prosecuted and all the high and mighty are thrown down from their lofty thrones into the mud.
That pass.
Media outlets have repeatedly reported on the recently released CIA document detailing briefings members of Congress and staff received about harsh interrogation techniques, including what and when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and other congressional Democrats knew about those techniques, but have largely ignored whether members were told there was significant disagreement within the administration regarding the legality and efficacy of these techniques. The issue is crucial to assessing whether congressional Democrats consented to the methods, as prominent Republicans and media conservatives claim. In the absence of full information, there can be no consent, a point the media have largely ignored in their coverage of the issue. If, as the evidence suggests, Congress was not told that experts within the administration strongly disputed the legality and efficacy of the methods, then the alleged failure on the part of members of Congress to object is irrelevant, and culpability for their alleged failure to respond lies with those who denied them information crucial to making a judgment about whether the administration was acting in the best interest of the nation.
Pelosi stated that Congress was not provided with "contrary opinions within the Executive Branch [that] concluded that these [enhanced] interrogation techniques were not legal."
Those who dissented include legal experts from the FBI and military who contested the Justice Department's determination that these EITs were legal; FBI and CIA counterintelligence experts who had reportedly expressed opposition to, and disputed the effectiveness of, the methods
http://mediamatters.org/research/200905150037
This article might help explain things a little:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5/15/AR2009051502743.html?hpid=topnews&sub=AR
Thanks.Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, one of the leaders of the Democratic party in Congress, was given a disputed amount of information concerning whether or not the Bush administration was, or was going to, torture terrorist suspects back in 2003 or 4. Now the CIA is saying she had a lot of info and she says she had nearly none. Classic he said she said.
Other than bad judgment and, at worst, a public lie, what law do you think she broke?I guess a pass from the purge that is going to come when all warcrimes are prosecuted and all the high and mighty are thrown down from their lofty thrones into the mud.
Other than bad judgment and, at worst, a public lie, what law do you think she broke?
I'm glad you've come around to the idea that all the Bush-era war criminals should be prosecuted. Good for you.
It has now become clear that the enlisted folks working at Abu Ghraib were ordered to torture from higher up, so that is not a case of MB's beloved "bad apples" theory, but clearly a systematic government intended breach of human rights.Uh....no. The enlisted folks from Abu Graib didnt.
It has now become clear that the enlisted folks working at Abu Ghraib were ordered to torture from higher up, so that is not a case of MB's beloved "bad apples" theory, but clearly a systematic government intended breach of human rights.
Taking everything into consideration, the only sane conclusion can be that Mrs Pelosi was informed (because that was obliged) by the CIA, but in such a way that would ensure that the Bush administration had their ways at the time; in other words vaguely or multi-interpretable. of course, with hindsight, Mrs Pelosi should have demanded more clarity, but frankly I doubt the CIA is willing to provide sufficient clarity, even to senators/congesmembers - isn't the goal of the CIA to create, discover and keep secrets ?
In all, the question "Should Pelosi get a pass?" should be answered with: "only when we know (and proven beyond reasonable doubt), what Mrs Pelosi was told can we decide on whether she should get a pass or not".
It has now become clear that the enlisted folks working at Abu Ghraib were ordered to torture from higher up, so that is not a case of MB's beloved "bad apples" theory, but clearly a systematic government intended breach of human rights.
This article might help explain things a little:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5/15/AR2009051502743.html?hpid=topnews&sub=AR
I don't really care if Pelosi gets a pass or gets tried for war crimes or whatever.
The fact that Pelosi knew about the whole waterboarding thing and kept her mouth shut made my day all by itself. Either the Democrats have to put her on trial for war crimes along with George Bush, or they have to let George Bush off the hook, or they're a bunch of hypocrites.
Congress is the only one who could of done anything about it. The House is far from helpless in this matter. And YES!, it is always far more important to go after the bad people in office, then the bad people out of office.Not at all. Merely knowing about the incidents but being helpless to actually do anything about them isn't the same thing as committing the acts themselves.
What is incredibly ironic about all this is that Fox "News" and the neocons are calling for her dismissal while whining at the same time that the actual committers of the war crimes be given a "free pass" because their direct involvement is now "history". Now that is hypocritical.