Waterboarding: Nowhere to Hide Now
Democrats have complained about waterboarding for quite some time, saying that it’s torture and violates the Geneva Conventions. After reading this Washington Post article, it’s apparent now that they’re talking out of both sides of their mouth:
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.
“The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough,” said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.
Ms. Pelosi, among others, has some explaining to do. John McCain’s stance is sincere because he’s been subjected to torture while he was a POW. Ms. Pelosi, it appears, had a ‘Come to Jesus’ moment well after she sanctioned waterboarding. Perhaps the best explanation for her change of heart isn’t that she had a ‘Come To Jesus Moment’ but rather had a ‘Come to MoveOn Moment’.
Whatever motivated her to change positions, a question remains unanswered: Why the change? It won’t be sufficient to give an evasive answer, either. Specifics are needed as to why the change of heart, if that’s what really happened.
Here’s the most telling quote in the article:
“In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic,” said one U.S. official present during the early briefings. “But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, ‘We don’t care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.’”
Think of how revealing that answer is. The first instincts after 9/11 was to do whatever it took to “protect the American people.” It wasn’t until groups like CAIR and the ACLU took exception that Democrats objected. What does that tell you about Democrats’ ability to prevent terrorist attacks? It tells me that they aren’t using everything that’s available. It says that they’re more worried about a terrorist’s civil rights than about protecting US citizens. That’s unacceptable.
Democrats rely on interest groups like CAIR and the ACLU for financing their campaigns. These organizations are doing everything possible to hamstring our intelligence-gathering capabilities. That’s a scary thought when you consider the fact that we’re fighting against ruthless, nimble foe that’s perfectly willing to wear us down over a long period of time.
We can’t afford to let Democrats, who are that influenced by people who don’t take national security seriously, have the White House levers of control. The thought is downright scary.
Technorati Tags: CIA, Waterboarding, Interrogation, ACLU, Nancy Pelosi, Jane Harman, CAIR, White House, Democrats, National Security, Election 2008
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog
December 9th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
There is not two democrats that i would trust in the white house.
December 9th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
It is worth noting that the CIA actually informed members of Congress about the tapes four years ago and also informed them in advance about their intention to ultimately destroy the tapes. One leading Democrat admits he knew about the destruction of the tapes last fall. Via AP:
Rep. Jane Harman of California, then the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, was one of only four members of Congress in 2003 informed of the tapes’ existence and the CIA’s intention to ultimately destroy them.
“I told the CIA that destroying videotapes of interrogations was a bad idea and urged them in writing not to do it,” Harman said. While key lawmakers were briefed on the CIA’s intention to destroy the tapes, they were not notified two years later when the spy agency actually carried out the plan. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said the committee only learned of the tapes’ destruction in November 2006.
They knew and they did nothing.
http://michellemalkin.com/
December 9th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
This is another reason that Senator McCain is the best man for the presidency. If he were president none of this would have ever took place. the worse thing that could have happened was to give that fruitcake any type power, let alone made her speaker of the house. Well there is one thing to be learned from this and that is that this will never happen again,because she has been such a disaster that there will never be another women in that position and that should sum up hillary’s chances.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
mullah cimoc say usa society so sick now. not the free press. just him war news blockade for keep ameriki mind control. sex pill, him pornography, the wife swap but childen destroy. now just to watch him cable tv. more fat each day. mexican each day working the so hard and love the family.
ameriki man him heart turn sick accept satan and the kill torture and him 7-11 cheese nacho.
but the punish. aztec and maya him take all land from ameriki. this for punish. ameriki the slut take LBT (low back tattoo) not to him children. this to punish. also not to cooking or love the child. this the big punish.
ameriki each day get him fake news show to make the stupid. how ameriki winning WWII but now just the decay and him daughter take meth and smoke the cigerette and dye the hair streak. this so the ashame.
for true info ameriki needing letter write: stop1984today@yahoo.com
December 9th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
The best policy regarding the CIA use of torture is “don’t ask, don’t tell”.
If CIA agents are captured by the enemy, they will be punished as the enemy sees fit.
December 9th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Back in 2002, Nancy Pelosi was all for waterboarding because if something happened to her or her family members, she’d want to see the perps pay or talk. Then she went to Syria and her friend Bashur assured her that she & hers would not be harmed. Change of heart.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:23 am
Yet the Massachusetts blimp in his Scotch misted brain keeps foaming on. Does he even realize his own party was in on the coverup as well?
December 10th, 2007 at 9:16 am
T.A.: Doesn’t matter, the MSM will keep that “inconvenient truth” out of their print and broadcasts.
As far as “torture” goes, the president (and conservatives in general) would do well to expose the definition of “torture” to the public, who has been taken by the donkeys, libs and media. The Prez has allowed them to redefine the term, and that’s just plain wrong (and stupid on his and the party’s part).
December 10th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Yeah, by their definition a pre 1980 Navy “crossing the line” or Chiefs initiation would be torture (having to crawl through fermented garbage, eat a certain Filipino delicacy, etc)
December 10th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
This piece — and the comments — just cries out for a thorough fisking, so here goes:
First, the article is rather biased. Notice all the names it mentions? Now, remember that this briefing was conducted while the republicans were still in control of Congress. So, we’re not getting the full story here, and (face facts) had any Democrat broken their oath of secrecy, they would have been tried and convicted of treason, followed shortly by summary execution.
Regarding the WaPo piece, it just reeks of Karl Rove: take a shred of truth — that Pelosi was briefed — and torture it to the point of nonrecognition.
To suggest, however, that the Democrats take their cues from the ACLU and CAIR… say what? Who do the republicans take their cues from? Pastor Ted and toe-tapping Larry? Norm Podhoretz? We’ve gotten ourselves in far more trouble listening to these and other rightwingnut fools.
For the record, Democrats do not care more about protecting terrorists’ supposed rights than US citizens safety; but, as Thomas Jefferson said, “He who trades liberty for security deserves neither and will lose both.”
And to the comments: George, there are two liars in the WH now that three-fourths of the citizens do not trust. Of the entire slate of republican candidates, there is not one who does not have a trust issue to deal with. Your partisan slander means nothing.
TA, first, quoting michelle malkin is reaching new depths. She’s so bad, nobody — not even Fox Noise — respects her anymore. Setting MiMi’s ridiculous and shrill whining aside, who are you to say what the Oversight Committee was told? Remember, they have all sworn an oath of secrecy, and are expected to maintain it. Again, smelling Rove’s Machiavellian hand in this, it is one of those situations in which the Democrat would be damned if they spoke out, and now they’re damned for not speaking out. Remember when you all went ape-sh*t over Sen. Rockefeller’s hand-written letter to Darth Cheney regarding the domestic spying scandal?
Vicki, on what planet are you living? McCain should be president based on his stance against torture? Gosh, that makes most of the country ready to assume office. Your other point — if you have one, it’s that hard to tell from your collection of non sequiturs — is that Speaker Pelosi is not qualified for her position based on her position on waterboarding. Assuming, for a moment, that she was for waterboarding at the time, but later, with the passage of time, realized the error of this position, you’re saying that once a politician supports a position it should be cast in stone and never allowed to change, or they’re branded defective. Well, thinking people know otherwise. Smart people understand that positions can and do change. Not necessarily for the better, or do I need to remind you that just after 9/11 W said we’d catch bin Laden “dead or alive.” Fast-forward a couple of years, and it seems bin Laden is no longer even on Bush’s radar.
Finally, Carlos, I agree, the presnit needs to define torture for us. Of course, with the verbal knots that come out of W’s mouth, it will be difficult to reach any conclusion or understanding, and his definition is sure to change. Kinda like how he said anyone caught leaking information in his administration would be “dealt with” a là Scooter Libby; we just didn’t know that meant “pardoned.” In today’s republican party, no words have definitive meaning.
There’s more to this story than meets the eye. And far more than stated in this piece.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
“In today’s republican party, no words have definitive meaning.”
Rocky, leaving the rest of your mindless drivel aside, let me point out that 1)my comment about the Prez defining torture was more of an invitation to the readers to look up the definition in the dictionary so they would be aware of how it is really defined. Obviously (but not surprisingly) that one passed right over your head.
And 2) the donkeys, libs and moonbats are the accomplished experts in using redefined words, to the detriment of society. They are, quite frankly, the progeny of Huxley’s “1984″ “newspeak”, and have honed their skills to an incredible degree. I mean, what else can be said about this when the President of the United States, in a sworn deposition, declares ‘It depends on what the definition of what “is” is.’
As far as the article goes, of course the writer had an agenda. That’s what’s taught in J 1 classes now. What’s upsetting to the agenda media is that it was dissing the donkeys, something that is sacrilegious to the MSM now.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Gosh, Carlos, I guess you didn’t notice that I used the third definition of the word “torture” in my post, did you? Just flew right over your head?
December 10th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
I knew usng Michelle would flip your knee jerk switch, Rocky. Your so predictable.
Point is your side knew as well as the other side, didnt they?
and also prooved themselves just as gutless didnt they?
And your proud of that?
I hope not, you are smarter then they are I hope.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:48 am
And by the way let me make something as clear I possibly can to everyone on this list, including Rocky
Compromising national security, or conspiring in the cover up or destruction of classified information is neither politically noble nor very smart and healthy for anybodies sorry ass. There is a reason in this unfair and immoral world certain acts and information are classified.
You people want to piss and moan about who got caught or what side knew what, when and where thats fine.
Rocky, I only pointed out that some of your favorite people are just as implicated as those on whose watch it happened, by their spineless and complicit response to actions they had a moral as well as an official obligation to stop.
What should be alarming to us all is the inability of too many of our “leaders” to THINK CLEARLY and ACT FORCEFULLY with conviction to protect things which should be protected for everyone’s security an safety.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Oh, you mean something along the lines of, “Harry Reid continues to torture patriotism.” Or how about, “Tubby continues to torture poverty.” Or maybe, Pelosi tortures bipartisanship.”
The discussion, Rocky, was about the noun “torture,” not the vt, and has to do with what constitutes the activity, not the sick twisting of old meanings to fit an agenda.
Sorry, it didn’t go right over my head.