NationStates Jolt Archive

Report Blames Rumsfeld for Detainee Abuses (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/washington/12detainee.html?em)
By SCOTT SHANE and MARK MAZZETTI, New York Times
WASHINGTON — A report released Thursday by leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee said top Bush administration officials, including Donald H. Rumsfeld, the former defense secretary, bore major responsibility for the abuses committed by American troops in interrogations at Abu Ghraib in Iraq; Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; and other military detention centers.

The report was issued jointly by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the Democratic chairman of the panel, and Senator John McCain of Arizona, the top Republican. It represents the most thorough review by Congress to date of the origins of the abuse of prisoners in American military custody, and it explicitly rejects the Bush administration’s contention that tough interrogation methods have helped keep the country and its troops safe.

The report also rejected previous claims by Mr. Rumsfeld and others that Defense Department policies played no role in the harsh treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 and in other episodes of abuse.

The abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the report says, “was not simply the result of a few soldiers acting on their own” but grew out of interrogation policies approved by Mr. Rumsfeld and other top officials, who “conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees.”

By the time of the abuses at Abu Ghraib, Mr. Rumsfeld had formally withdrawn approval for use of the harshest techniques, which he authorized in December 2002 and then ruled out a month later. But the report said that those methods, including the use of stress positions and forced nudity, continued to spread through the military detention system, and that their use “damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority.”

Most of the report, the product of an 18-month inquiry and interviews with more than 70 people by committee staff members, remains classified. But the 29-page summary offers the clearest timeline to date linking the acts of Mr. Rumsfeld and other Pentagon officials to abusive treatment in the field.

A spokesman for Mr. Rumsfeld, Keith Urbahn, said a dozen earlier investigations had found no such connection, and he dismissed the report as “unfounded allegations against those who have served our nation.”

“Because of irresponsible charges by a few individuals in positions of responsibility in Congress, millions of people around the world have been led to believe that the United States condones torture,” Mr. Urbahn said.

Committee staff members said the report was approved by a voice vote without dissent, but only 17 of the committee’s 25 members were present for the vote. Mr. McCain, who was tortured while he was a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, has been an outspoken opponent of harsh interrogation tactics, but some other Republicans have defended such methods as legal and necessary.

Many of the particulars in the summary were made public at hearings the committee held in June and September, including the fact that members of President Bush’s cabinet discussed specific interrogation methods in White House meetings.

The report documents how the military training program called Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape, or SERE, became a crucial source for interrogations as the Bush administration looked for tougher methods after the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The SERE training was devised decades ago to give American military personnel a taste of the treatment they might face if taken prisoner by China, the Soviet Union or other cold war adversaries. “The techniques were never intended to be used against detainees in U.S. custody,” Mr. Levin said in a statement.

In his statement on Thursday, Mr. McCain called the adoption of SERE methods “inexcusable.”

The report found that senior Defense Department officials inquired about SERE techniques for prisoner interrogations as early as December 2001, when the war in Afghanistan was weeks old and American troops were just beginning to capture people suspected of being members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

In September, the committee released a December 2001 letter from the head of the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency, which runs the SERE program, to a deputy of William J. Haynes II, the Pentagon’s general counsel, saying the agency’s officials “stand ready to assist” Pentagon efforts at prisoner “exploitation.”

The committee’s report says little about the Central Intelligence Agency, except to note that that agency also drew on the SERE program for harsh methods it used in secret overseas jails for Qaeda suspects. The C.I.A. has said it used waterboarding, a method of near-drowning previously used in the Navy’s SERE program, on three captured terrorism suspects in 2002 and 2003.

Unlike the military, the C.I.A. is still permitted to use some coercive methods, though the precise rules are classified. The agency has said that it no longer uses waterboarding.

Senators Levin, McCain Release Executive Summary and Conclusions of Report on Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody (http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=305735)

WASHINGTON – Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Ranking Member John McCain (R-Ariz.) today released the executive summary and conclusions of the Committee’s report of its inquiry into the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody.

A major focus of the Committee’s investigation was the influence of Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape (SERE) training techniques on the interrogation of detainees in U.S. custody. SERE training is designed to teach our soldiers how to resist interrogation by enemies that refuse to follow the Geneva Conventions and international law. During SERE training, U.S. troops --- in a controlled environment with great protections and caution --- are exposed to harsh techniques such as stress positions, forced nudity, use of fear, sleep deprivation, and until recently, the waterboard. The SERE techniques were never intended to be used against detainees in U.S. custody. The Committee’s investigation found, however, that senior officials in the U.S. government decided to use some of these harsh techniques against detainees based on deeply flawed interpretations of U.S. and international law.

The Committee concluded that the authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques by senior officials was both a direct cause of detainee abuse and conveyed the message that it was okay to mistreat and degrade detainees in U.S. custody.

Chairman Levin said, “SERE training techniques were designed to give our troops a taste of what they might be subjected to if captured by a ruthless, lawless enemy so that they would be better prepared to resist. The techniques were never intended to be used against detainees in U.S. custody.”

Senator McCain said, “The Committee’s report details the inexcusable link between abusive interrogation techniques used by our enemies who ignored the Geneva Conventions and interrogation policy for detainees in U.S. custody. These policies are wrong and must never be repeated.”

Chairman Levin also said: “The abuses at Abu Ghraib, GTMO and elsewhere cannot be chalked up to the actions of a few bad apples. Attempts by senior officials to pass the buck to low ranking soldiers while avoiding any responsibility for abuses are unconscionable. The message from top officials was clear; it was acceptable to use degrading and abusive techniques against detainees. Our investigation is an effort to set the record straight on this chapter in our history that has so damaged both America’s standing and our security. America needs to own up to its mistakes so that we can rebuild some of the good will that we have lost.”

In the course of its more than 18-month long investigation, the Committee reviewed hundreds of thousands of documents and conducted extensive interviews with more than 70 individuals.


Executive Summary and Conclusions [19-page PDF] (http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/2008/Detainees.121108.pdf)
Statement of Senator Levin (http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=305734)
Part I of the Committee’s Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody - June 17, 2008 (http://levin.senate.gov/senate/statement.cfm?id=299242)
Part II of the Committee’s Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody - September 25, 2008 (http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=303575)

Surprise, surprise, surprise!

(Also glad to see Senator McCain still has some balls. :wink:)

He takes that torture stuff pretty personally, doesn't he?

Quite a bargain. We got Obama as President and we got the old John McCain back. :)

Question is, will there be consequences for this for Rumsfeld?

Question is, will there be consequences for this for Rumsfeld?
Ahahaha. No.

Ahahaha. No.Then this report is quite worthless.

Then this report is quite worthless.
Still, good effort at making the US look responsible and all that.

Still, good effort at making the US look responsible and all that.Yeah, but it's the equivalent of a Hans Blix puppet telling a Kim Jong Il puppet that the UN will get very angry and write a letter (in this case a Senate report) about how angry they are.

Question is, will there be consequences for this for Rumsfeld?

I've an article (saved in my links archive at home) I'll post later in answer to that, and in realtion to where the shit has already landed. Check back in about 8 hours.

Question is, will there be consequences for this for Rumsfeld?

Then this report is quite worthless.
Are you disappointed because the gravitational constant is still the same, too?

The report has not yet been proven worthless because it has only just been released. Give it a minute, will you? There is a very good probability that the report will be useful in not permitting the rightwing to rewrite history the way they have been trying to ever since the Abu Ghraib pictures came out. There is a very good probability that this report will be used as one of the building blocks in new measures to reinforce US law and US adherence to international law to make sure future administrations never do this criminal shit again. And there is a fairly decent probability that it will become one of the factors in a case against Rumsfeld. All in the fullness of time.

The fact that the probability is very, very slight that such a case would result in Rumsfeld rotting in prison for the rest of his miserable life is a bitter disappointment, but that does not render this report worthless.

It's good timing too because Henry Kissinger is getting on in years and we could use another symbol of evil incarnate hanging around Washington. *nod*

Are you disappointed because the gravitational constant is still the same, too?Yes, but that's Obama's fault, and not the senate's.

The report has not yet been proven worthless because it has only just been released. Give it a minute, will you? There is a very good probability that the report will be useful in not permitting the rightwing to rewrite history the way they have been trying to ever since the Abu Ghraib pictures came out. Meh. I'm not all that optimistic where this is concerned. Birth certificates weren't enough to convince some of the delusionists that Obama was a US citizen. I don't see how this report will help in combating ignorance of history in the future.
There is a very good probability that this report will be used as one of the building blocks in new measures to reinforce US law and US adherence to international law to make sure future administrations never do this criminal shit again. And there is a fairly decent probability that it will become one of the factors in a case against Rumsfeld. All in the fullness of time.If there actually will be a case against Rumsfeld. If it happens, I will elate, but I've seen little that there will actually be consequences for those responsible.
The fact that the probability is very, very slight that such a case would result in Rumsfeld rotting in prison for the rest of his miserable life is a bitter disappointment, but that does not render this report worthless.There needs to be some sort of attempt at legal reconciliation to avoid it being a meaningless scrap of paper. "It's Rummy's fault, but we'll leave it at that," is inadequate.

rumsfeld is 76. he is unlikely to rot in prison

but maybe he could spend the rest of his miserable life spending his energy and money on defending himself from the possibility of it.

rumsfeld is 76. he is unlikely to rot in prison
He's already rotten.

but maybe he could spend the rest of his miserable life spending his energy and money on defending himself from the possibility of it.
I'll ask Santa this one as gift.

He's already rotten.


I'll ask Santa this one as gift.
mr rumsfeld has a nice estate here in new mexico. if they can go after him hard enough maybe he'll have to put it up for sale in a few years.

Oh, look, now that John McCain doesnt have to hold Bush's sack in his mouth to appease the right wing, he has a spine again.

Anyway, Id like something to come from this. At least it will stop the right from pretending that Bush's administration had nothing to do with it (of course, some of them will just say Rummy was doing the right thing) and perhaps we'll see some legistlation, enforcement and maybe even some accountability come out of it.

i can has international war crimes tribunal nao?

Question is, will there be consequences for this for Rumsfeld?

Read this, and I think you'll get a sense of what will happen.
The General’s Report
How Antonio Taguba, who investigated the Abu Ghraib scandal, became one of its casualties.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/06/25/070625fa_fact_hersh?printable=true

Question is, will there be consequences for this for Rumsfeld?

Unknown. Not from this Report as such, but it is a step in that direction.

Read this, and I think you'll get a sense of what will happen.


http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/06/25/070625fa_fact_hersh?printable=true
Holy shit. Really, assuming even that just most of that article is based on documented evidence, that alone should be enough to bring these fuckers up on charges.

Holy shit. Really, assuming even that just most of that article is based on documented evidence, that alone should be enough to bring these fuckers up on charges.

Its from June 25th 2007. You'll note who ended up the most fucked after the investigation - the one who worked his way up a la the American dream and all that.

The odds of nailing Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest are about the same as pouring out smoke, sawing it in half and nailing it to the wall.

This is a long read, but its relevant....
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/?hpid=specialreports

I would like to see Bush pardon himself and everyone else who is a Republican, and omit Pelosi.

She sat through the reports on this long before it became an issue, and didn't bat an eyelash about people being waterboarded.

When they go investigating for people to charge, they'll be left with two choices - have Obama pardon Pelosi, or prosecute her for war crimes.

I would like to see Bush pardon himself and everyone else who is a Republican, and omit Pelosi.

She sat through the reports on this long before it became an issue, and didn't bat an eyelash about people being waterboarded.

When they go investigating for people to charge, they'll be left with two choices - have Obama pardon Pelosi, or prosecute her for war crimes.

So, youre purely partisan. You want the Republicans who ordered it to get off, but the democrat to not be?


Not really suprising, DK. Sad, pathetic, and transparent, but not suprising.

I would like to see Bush pardon himself and everyone else who is a Republican, and omit Pelosi.


That's nice. I'd like a pony.

She sat through the reports on this long before it became an issue, and didn't bat an eyelash about people being waterboarded.

Nor did you, so what the fuck leg do you have to stand on here? None.

When they go investigating for people to charge, they'll be left with two choices - have Obama pardon Pelosi, or prosecute her for war crimes.

Ah, a false dichotomy. How refreshing from your usual intellectual vigor and ability to argue logically.

I would like to see Bush pardon himself and everyone else who is a Republican, and omit Pelosi.

She sat through the reports on this long before it became an issue, and didn't bat an eyelash about people being waterboarded.

When they go investigating for people to charge, they'll be left with two choices - have Obama pardon Pelosi, or prosecute her for war crimes.

Setting aside your ridiculous partisanship and contempt for justice and human rights, this is an odd comment, given that Rumsfeld and other Bush officials are identified for wrongdoing in the report, but Pelosi is never mentioned.

It's nice to see that report. I hope it has reprecussions for the "untouchables" in the Bush administration....

It's nice to see that report. I hope it has reprecussions for the "untouchables" in the Bush administration....

Hope is a nice thing. Do you think it really will, though?

I get the impression, from Bush's "So what?" dismissal of the fact that there were no WMDs, to things Cheney is saying, that these people are really just thumbing their noses at the system, at the US, at democracy and in general at everything they can - because they know, or at least think, they'll get away with it.

Hope is a nice thing. Do you think it really will, though?

Absolutely not. Seems like the powers that be would just like to sweep the last 8 years under the rug and pretend that it never happened. "Nobody wants to open up old wounds, let sleeping dogs lie" etc.

Absolutely not. Seems like the powers that be would just like to sweep the last 8 years under the rug and pretend that it never happened. "Nobody wants to open up old wounds, let sleeping dogs lie" etc.

You're probably right. I wish you weren't, but this country has a chilling tendency for collective self-denial and other paltry rationalizations for our political crimes.

The best I can hope for is that Obama won't continue to make such crimes. And it's really a comment on the US when the best you can say is, "Well, maybe we won't kill half a million people based on a lie this time."

Funny, Pelosi didn't have a problem with waterboarding the shit out of detainees when she was first told about it during secret testimony.

It was only after it hit the press, and became a political issue that she decided to open her mouth.

The same could be said for all of the senators who were equally aware that it was going on, and said absolutely nothing.

Funny, Pelosi didn't have a problem with waterboarding the shit out of detainees when she was first told about it during secret testimony.

It was only after it hit the press, and became a political issue that she decided to open her mouth.

The same could be said for all of the senators who were equally aware that it was going on, and said absolutely nothing.

That's the spirit: if you don't like the subject (Rumsfeld et al responsible for abuse of detainees according to a bi-partisan report), try to change it into something else.

Even assuming what you say is true and is relevant, there is rather a large difference between not going public when you learn of something through secret testimony and being the one that ordered that wrongdoing.

Great! So we can expect charges to be filed . . . <checks watch> . . . never, right? :(

Funny, Pelosi didn't have a problem with waterboarding the shit out of detainees when she was first told about it during secret testimony.

It was only after it hit the press, and became a political issue that she decided to open her mouth.

The same could be said for all of the senators who were equally aware that it was going on, and said absolutely nothing.

Secret Testimony. Secret. As in whether she approved or not was reserved for the ears of those in on the secret. You know, the Bush Administration frowns highly on leaking secrets. Unless they are the ones leaking them. ;)

Then lo and behold, when the secret is out and she is free to speak, she does. Weird, eh?

I would like to see Bush pardon himself and everyone else who is a Republican, and omit Pelosi.

She sat through the reports on this long before it became an issue, and didn't bat an eyelash about people being waterboarded.

When they go investigating for people to charge, they'll be left with two choices - have Obama pardon Pelosi, or prosecute her for war crimes.
yeah cause that will show them that it was wrong to do, won't it? You'll be happy with the people who actually ordered the crime getting off scot-free and someone who had nothing to do with it getting sentenced.
That will make you feel good about yourself and your country, will it?

That aside, I strongly suspect you're initial sentence will bear our (minus that ludicrous comment about Pelosi, as she had nothing to do with this). GWB at 11.59pm on January 19th will probably pardon every one of his cronies for every bit of illegal wrongdoing. That and sign into law a bunch of environmentally-raping, coal & oil industry coffer-filling legislation for all his mates in the Energy sector (thus assuring himself of a massive thank-you payout from them when he leaves). And no doubt sign something into law that all his personal correspondence over the past 8 years be either destroyed or made top secret for the next 50 years, so we'll never see just how nasty, corrupt and incompetent his presidency actually was.



(Also glad to see Senator McCain still has some balls. :wink:)
I prefer not to think about the state of a septugenarian's testicles, if you don't mind.
However, to quote the prophet JL, Whatever gets you through the night 'salright, 'salright.

Nor did you, so what the fuck leg do you have to stand on here? None.

Now lets be fair. It's not that DK didn't bat an eyelash at the prospect of torture, he all but chortled with glee and proceeded to try to defend it.

Well it would make every senator and repsentative, wither republician or democrat, an accomplice after the fact to the crimes if they knew it was going on and did nothing to stop it. On the other hand if they knew about it and revealed top secret information to prevent it, that would also be an crime. Furthermore in an state of war with more than one witness, that would be the constutional defination of treason. I am sure Bush would have loved that assuming he could pull it off.

However onto the issue at hand Rumsfeld Bush, Cheney, and others if they broke the law should be punished along with anyone else who knew. However I don't think they will be punished, it would be nice but they wouldn't be the first to get away with violations of people's rights. Though I amit the first president to do so, John Adams got to see his party self distruct and lose power after their little stunt of illegally jailing their opponents. I doubt the Republician will such the same such fate.

Secret Testimony. Secret. As in whether she approved or not was reserved for the ears of those in on the secret. You know, the Bush Administration frowns highly on leaking secrets. Unless they are the ones leaking them. ;)

Then lo and behold, when the secret is out and she is free to speak, she does. Weird, eh?

It was her moral obligation to fucking scream this information from the rooftops and do everything she could to stop it.

A spokesman for Mr. Rumsfeld, Keith Urbahn, said a dozen earlier investigations had found no such connection, and he dismissed the report as “unfounded allegations against those who have served our nation.”

“Because of (irresponsible charges by) a few individuals in positions of responsibility in Congress, millions of people around the world have been led to believe that the United States condones torture,” Mr. Urbahn said.
I could not have said it better, Mr Urbahn.
Those few individuals being GWB, Rumsfeld and Cheney...

Bush: Rumsfeld /thread

It was her moral obligation to fucking scream this information from the rooftops and do everything she could to stop it.

Quite a lot of people had that moral obligation and did not so scream. Many of them were not politicians looking out for #1. Many others did so scream and were drowned out by the blind rabid patriotism of the government and the media in the first couple years after Sept. 11, 2001.

Blame is like shit: If you throw it everywhere, it's kind of hard to tell who the most of it sticks to.

It was her moral obligation to fucking scream this information from the rooftops and do everything she could to stop it.
she should have raced to Iraq and physically stopped those guards from torturing the inmates! Once that was accomplished, then off to every secret CIA prison in the world, knocking them down with her bare hands then lobbing doves and weird kitten-puppy hybrids at the CIA agents in an effort to make them happy and lose interest in torturing.
Later she could have skipped around the world singing Woody Guthrie songs and randomly hugging strangers.

The fact she didn't sickens me to the pit of my stomach. She needs to take full responsibilty for Rumsfeld's actions and give poor Rummy a well-deserved break. He's the innocent victim in all this! Just because he ordered the torturing of suspects doesn't mean he's responsible! Pelosi is the evil one here, because she found out about it later!

Once that was accomplished, then off to every secret CIA prison in the world, knocking them down with her bare hands then lobbing doves and weird kitten-puppy hybrids at the CIA agents in an effort to make them happy and lose interest in torturing.

Would you call them Puttens or Kippies?

Funny, Pelosi didn't have a problem with waterboarding the shit out of detainees when she was first told about it during secret testimony.

It was only after it hit the press, and became a political issue that she decided to open her mouth.

The same could be said for all of the senators who were equally aware that it was going on, and said absolutely nothing.

Im sure you have a source for this.


Wait...nevermind.

Would you call them Puttens or Kippies?
probably "ahhhhh....they sooo cute!"

Similar topic: Undead Wombats - would they be called Zombats or Wombies?
It popped into my head last week and I still can't decide! I'm favouring Zombat at the moment.
What do you lot think?

Snip.

I would like to see Bush die a slow and painful death, along with Rumsfeld and Cheney. Withering in pain and having hallucinations of being tortured and raped by their worst enemies. Screaming until their throats are sore, and then keeping screaming, because they can't help but. All the while knowing they are impotent to end their own suffering, and knowing that their families won't euthanize them. SUFFERING. HURTING. DYING.

And at least MY wish is fairer than YOURS.

Aside from that, you're not even PRETENDING to give a fuck about justice anymore, eh? How cute.

Im sure you have a source for this.


Wait...nevermind.

You were saying? She got more than one informative briefing on the subject as far back as 2002.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html?hpid=topnews

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.


CIA Director Michael V. Hayden said in an interview two months ago that he had informed congressional overseers of "all aspects of the detention and interrogation program."

"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.

Congressional leaders from both parties would later seize on waterboarding as a symbol of the worst excesses of the Bush administration's counterterrorism effort. The CIA last week admitted that videotape of an interrogation of one of the waterboarded detainees was destroyed in 2005 against the advice of Justice Department and White House officials, provoking allegations that its actions were illegal and the destruction was a coverup.

Yet long before "waterboarding" entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.

With one known exception, no formal objections

From the Washington Post:

Pelosi declined to comment directly on her reaction to the classified briefings. But a congressional source familiar with Pelosi's position on the matter said the California lawmaker did recall discussions about enhanced interrogation. The source said Pelosi recalls that techniques described by the CIA were still in the planning stage -- they had been designed and cleared with agency lawyers but not yet put in practice -- and acknowledged that Pelosi did not raise objections at the time.

You were saying? She got more than one informative briefing on the subject as far back as 2002.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html?hpid=topnews

Nevermind that this self-serving and mostly anonymous report is disputed -- including later within the same article.

Or that this allegedly occurred when the Republicans controlled the Congress.

Or that you are comparing apples and hand-grenades.

Or that this has nothing to do with who ordered the torture and/or mistreatment of detainees.

....

From the Washington Post:

"a congressional source" -- Wow.

That's almost as conclusive as an extensive and detailed bi-partisan Senate report.

Not.

"a congressional source" -- Wow.

That's almost as conclusive as an extensive and detailed bi-partisan Senate report.

Not.

Pelosi herself admits being told about it. Read the article.

The briefer also admits telling her about it.

She also recalls not objecting to it.

Pelosi herself admits being told about it. Read the article.

The briefer also admits telling her about it.

She also recalls not objecting to it.

Um. I read the article -- both before and after you linked it.

Please feel free to quote where the article says any of the bolded things. Especially the assertions that Pelosi "admits" to anything.

From the Washington Post:

I notice you conveniently forgot to highlight the bit before the bit you did highlight. to wit:

The source said Pelosi recalls that techniques described by the CIA were still in the planning stage -- they had been designed and cleared with agency lawyers but not yet put in practice

Notice some key phrases there:
Still in the planning stage
cleared with agency lawyers
not yet put in practice

So you're wanting her prosecuted for being told about some techniques that hadn't been fully designed, had been okayed by lawyers as being legal and had yet to be implemented?
You want her tried for war crimes (but not Rumsfeld et al who actually, y'know, decided to do this) because she had been given incomplete information, assured that what the CIa was doing was legal and was told the CIA hadn't actually done anything yet.

yeah. I can see why you would think her so culpable. :rolleyes:

she should have raced to Iraq and physically stopped those guards from torturing the inmates! Once that was accomplished, then off to every secret CIA prison in the world, knocking them down with her bare hands then lobbing doves and weird kitten-puppy hybrids at the CIA agents in an effort to make them happy and lose interest in torturing.
Later she could have skipped around the world singing Woody Guthrie songs and randomly hugging strangers.

Yes, of course when I explicitly said she had an obligation to do everything she could I meant that she should attempt to do things that she was obviously incapable of doing. I couldn't possibly have meant that she should have informed the general public and then tried to use her position and power to stop the heinous betrayal of the constitution she was supposed to protect.

Next time argue my point, not the one you wish I made.

Next time argue my point, not the one you wish I made.
Next time, try to understand satire and hyperbole.

Funny, Pelosi didn't have a problem with waterboarding the shit out of detainees when she was first told about it during secret testimony.

What's funnier is that you have no problem with torture, and you've described killing Muslims during your bloody war as "better than orgasm," yet you're constantly presuming to take a faux moral high ground.

You have - zero- credibility there.

It doesn't help that you're just lying.

What's funnier is that you have no problem with torture, and you've described killing Muslims during your bloody war as "better than orgasm," yet you're constantly presuming to take a faux moral high ground.

You have - zero- credibility there.

It doesn't help that you're just lying.

And let's not forget this recent piece of brilliant Kimchism proposed as a response to the Mumbai attacks:

There is a technical solution to the Pakistan problem. The use of specifically salted airburst thermonuclear weapons to depopulate the nation of Pakistan.

Say, something with a half-life under 30 days that is bioavailable, and readily taken in by the body.

In a few months, you could march in and bury the corpses. Problem solved.

What's funnier is that you have no problem with torture, and you've described killing Muslims during your bloody war as "better than orgasm," yet you're constantly presuming to take a faux moral high ground.

You have - zero- credibility there.

You're giving him far too much credibility.

Um. I read the article -- both before and after you linked it.

Please feel free to quote where the article says any of the bolded things. Especially the assertions that Pelosi "admits" to anything.

give it a few more articles it will become Pelosi's idea.