I heard Morning D'oh weigh in on this today. He can really pile on the fauxtrage. As the Master Thespian used to say "Acting!"

Congressman distancing themselves from an issue happens X times 535 per day. where x is greater than 1 and less than infinty.

Seems the way you can determine the repubs are on the wrong side of an issue is when they employ taint and run (to a microphone).

Torture, illegal. Waterboarding, torture.

Hard to believe the D'oh's outrage is pointed anywhere but the source. Oh no, wait, it's not hard to believe at all.

And anyone who tried to bring up a varying point of view was mocked and derided in the most juvenile way. Like I said earlier, a squawking bunch of Church ladies clucking over a bad dish at the pot luck while the priest is buggering the altar boy in the basement.

I can see your points here, Bob, and I agree with you. The Republicans ARE trying to deflect. They are also committing Party suicide by doing so. Their best hope is to distance themselves from Bush and Cheney.

However, I can also say with a little certainty that the Pelosi angle deserves to be investigated as well, and will probably end up as a smaller PART of the whole.

I watched O'Reilly and Olbermann as they both attempted to build their opposing cases on the subject. It was truly inspiring, and, a little vomit-inducing as well. Neither one was very convincing, and as with so many things political, the real truth lies somewhere in the middle.

For your sake, I will tell you that as an outsider, I noticed something disturbing about the facts of this case. To date, only the CIA has mentioned ANY documentation about these briefings. Nancy Pelosi has relied, completely, on her word to defend herself. She ought to know better. If the CIA has documentation stating that she knew waterboarding was used, she's finished, and so far, it's looking like they do.

As I watched her presser, I was left with the impression of an elected official denying an affair. You know, Bob, we've seen so much of that in the last twenty years, and I couldn't help but think that Nancy was desperately trying to deny something that she knew, sooner or later, would ruin her career. She looked like a politician trying to buy time, knowing that in the end, she will go down because of the truth.

The horrors of torture will be dealth with, but I still insist that this is something that the international community is going to have to investigate. If I were an Arab, or a European, I would not trust the United States Congress to justly carry out the investigation of this case.

Sooner rather than later, we will start to hear the world demand justice over this case. Our media's coverage of it will guarantee that.

The best part of this was when Ron Paul came on and Joe thought that he would be all over Pelosi and Paul said: We would never be in this position had they not broken the law in the first place! HAHA Scarboroughs face dropped and Paul further pointed out that the Pelosi stuff was nothing more than a purposely created side show.

Why does Ron Paul hate Joe Scarborough?

I only have to say if Pelosi knew, then she needs to go. This is not a partisan matter.

To date, only the CIA has mentioned ANY documentation about these briefings.

Not quite. Bob Graham said that after the CIA said he'd been briefed 4 times, he consulted his schedule & found that 2 of the dates were wrong.

As to WHY Graham or Pelosi or anyone else has no documentation as to what was said/done during the briefings, keep in mind that note-taking, pictures, recording, etc. were forbidden. Any documentation that does exist, therefore, as the CIA pointed out, is a product of someone's memory - there is no objective record. And, as the CIA rightly pointed out, they put together a timeline but could not vouch for the accuracy of any of it.

Posted by: jenski42 at May 15, 2009 9:26 AM

Yes.

from Cesca:
"Following the lead of the Republicans who desperately need the Pelosi story to distract from the real news here: earthshattering information oozing from the cracks about how the Bushies used torture to fabricate their case for war and how Dick Cheney is at the heart of it all (no pun intended)."

Ummm... The odds are very good that, like the torture photos, people such as Pelosi will call Obama and say, "hey, you know that stuff with the torture thing n' stuff (she has a way with words)? Yeah, I need you to put the lid on this investigation, too, as I continue to make myself look like an assclown in defense of the party's actions at the time."

She needs to go. Now.

.... But she probably won't.

I live in San Francisco. Pelosi is my congress person.She knew. Torture is a bi partisan issue. Both parties are guilty. The republicans for doing it. And the democrats for for allowining it.

What better way to get the rethuglicans to support investigations and trials than to get them to want hearings about what Pelosi knew and when she knew it?

What better way to get that started than for her to attack their baby the CIA? To call them liars, to try to make it a partisan job, to force the rethuglicans right where Pres. Obama and the Democrats want them. Now it can be a bipartisan investigation where before it was always just the "liberals" who wanted this done. Now they have a target to go after...lol

I love it when a plan comes together.

We used Enhanced Interogation Techniques on 3 people after the worst mass murder this world has ever seen, to find out if other attacks were imminent.

No John.. we Waterboarded 3 people that we know of to try to get a link between 9-11 and al Qaeda. We used "Enhanced Interogation Techniques" as you called it.. what I call torture on hundreds or thousands.. and killed hundreds.. including children.

Sorry, that should say between 9-11 and Iraq.. my bad.. lol

I'd like to make one other statement about torture. It's actually kind of a general question for everyone.

When does torture start?

That's not a dumb question. If you were looking at things from my perspective, you'd realize that. I'd bet GI tehJoe understands what I'm asking.

Here's the thing: We literally sometimes have to beat the living shit out of a combatant to imprison him. It's that, or just kill him. Some of these men do not come willingly, they resist until they finally realize we won''t give them what some of them want, which is a quick death. Others fight because their nature is like ours. In truth, I'd rather fight until I was shot than be imprisoned.

How do you feel about the FACT that having to beat someone senseless is sometimes necessary just to capture them? We are ALL squeamish about the idea of torture. Yet we don't seem to have any problem with the brutality it sometimes takes to MAKE someone a prisoner.

Or do we prefer to never think about that?

Yes Annette I'm sure you have full documentation on that charge, and that that alone, was what the intent was. Not sure any of that information was used to substantiate John Kerry and Hillary's vote and all the other Democrats who know and knew Iraq was a dangerous regime. Clinton's 1998 call for Regime change must have been declared for some odd reason.

PPP, unfortunately those realities are lost on some of these people, until of course you illustrate it for them, as you have.

Yes, I do have documentation of that. I don't make charges I can't back up. I have it all on my blog. You are welcome to read it anytime you want. I have been blogging about torture since I started my blog in November.

No, sorry, I don't believe you have to beat someone to death to "capture" them. I reject that and I just really think you are saying things thinking you will shock me or whatever PPP.. sorry, won't work. I listened to my dad talk about WWII and what he went through.

He told me all about things he saw. How he helped bring out some of the people in the prison camps, and some of the Jewish people who hadn't been killed yet, but were not quite starved yet, but had been beaten almost to an inch of their lives. So no, you can't shock me. He didn't, and he still didn't have to torture the Germans when he captured them, and he refused to believe that torture was needed. Even after he saw what was done to the POW's in WWII.

If, that's not enough I listened to my brother when he came home from 'Nam, and how they treated the POW's. John McCain had nothing on some of the POW's. He was treated well compared to what some of them got. I have heard it all.

Maybe you should think before you speak. I don't shock easily.. but I still don't think we need to torture anyone. And what Cheney and Bush did was torture.

Here's the thing: We literally sometimes have to beat the living shit out of a combatant to imprison him

Um, our troops have weapons. I'm not sure why they'd need to resort to hand-to-hand combat to take a prisoner in the field.

Regardless, torture is wrong and, subsequently, illegal at the highest levels of civilization. We're not talking about identifying witches in the 17th century here.

pooper:

Torture begins when you continue to use those same extreme techniques AFTER the person has been captured. Question for you, pooper. Do you think as many people would approve of these techniques if they knew they could also possibly be used on American citizens inside our border?

I've quoted it before, but olde Thom Paine said it best,

“An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”

On Pelosi: never liked her. I have no use for her or Harry Reid. These two people make me hesitant to call myself a Democrat at times. The sooner she's out of the picture, the sooner I can stop agreeing with stupid ass self-servatives.

Annette, Altruism is an honorable state of mind, however you may find you'll be living a life of disappointment if you don't balance it with some doses of reality and acceptance.

By the way PPP.. You have made some comments about the Tea Party signs and how they were not partisan, and not directed at Pres. Obama.

Here is a listing of them you can check out.. I find most of them look to be directed at Pres. Obama and some of them are pretty nasty.

Tea Party Slogans

Only used on 3 people? Oh, really? Sez who?

The most intriguing item up for sale this week, is the possibility of the direct link of waterboarding the head of Iraqi intelligence to elicit false information to Cheney. If the allegations turn out to be true, he is not going to be able to hide behind the executive anymore, and all this stuff about saving lives and so forth will be sent to the arena of mitigating factors during his sentencing.

I am living in reality and acceptance.. I would say it is probably you that is not John...

I accept that the Law is the Law and torture is wrong.. it is against the Law and has always been. Just because you can get an attorney to write a memo to change the name a little and call it "enhanced interrogation" as opposed to torture doesn't make it legal.

We used Enhanced Interogation Techniques on 3 people after the worst mass murder this world has ever seen

Really? You really think that? Dresden Germany was a fun place? Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just a minor sideshow. Auschwitz and Buchenwald was just some fascists having a bit of fun.

Whatever.

Yes Annette I'm sure you have full documentation on that charge...

Yes. We do. You haven't been keeping up. The stack of evidence is getting rather high.

If you wish to take the word of a group of proven liars, by all means, don't let me stop you. If you expect me to believe them, then dream on. I wouldn't by a used car from those crooks.

John, the worst mass murder in the history of the world? Read some history.

PPP, judging by the wording of your post, you really think everyone else is far less intelligent than you. Thanks for that. We're perfectly capable of understanding your question and the accompanying point. We're also capable of understanding the difference between subduing an aggressive combatant and torturing someone for information, but in the end, even that is not the larger point here. The larger point is the fact that it appears more and more likely that we didn't just torture people to get information that would keep us safe. We tortured them so they would invent stories we wanted to hear so we could start a war against a country that posed no threat to us.

Despite John's insight, calling for regime change for a brutal leader is a very different thing than actually attacking that country on the basis of information you know to be lies--lies that you created through tortuous methods.

Where did you all go? Did you run away now?

Darn it was getting fun...lol

Then we have this little diddy---

Mika Brzezinski writes a letter to the NYTimes:

. . . Joe’s evenhanded approach angers harsh ideologues on both sides. Last week, he was attacked by right-wing hosts for being too open-minded, and now by your liberal editorial page.

This liberal thinks The New York Times should follow Joe Scarborough’s example of speaking truth to power — regardless of which party is in power.

Mika Brzezinski
New York, May 11, 2009

bwahhahahahhaaaaaah

When has she ever been liberal?

I have never heard her ever say or do anything that made me think she was in any way shape or form a liberal or even lean liberal.

Mika's dad is a liberal. Mika is not a liberal IMO. I don't care what she calls herself. She isn't one.

That's what I am saying... She sucked right up with Palin and McCain.. talks about all the republicans and kisses up to them all the time. Never about the Dems..

Bob Graham on MSNBC backing up Nancy Pelosi right now.

To date, only the CIA has mentioned ANY documentation about these briefings. Nancy Pelosi has relied, completely, on her word to defend herself. She ought to know better. If the CIA has documentation stating that she knew waterboarding was used, she's finished, and so far, it's looking like they do.

If Pelosi was complicit then she should be gone as well. That being said, she's asked the CIA to release the documents, but they've refused. If they have her nailed to the wall, then why the refusal? I know that there's "national security" involved here, but if your operation is being called bogus, then it's in the CIA's best interest to release said documents and prove Pelosi wrong, shut her up and save face. Why won't they do that?

It's also come to light that former head of the Intelligence Committee Sen. Bob Graham is siding with Pelosi. His notes comfirm one meeting in which they were not told about waterboarding being used while the CIA said he'd been briefed four times. After comparing notes, THE CIA WAS WRONG. It happens.

Graham: "When I asked the CIA when I had been briefed, they gave me four dates, two in April and two in September of '02. On three of the four occasions, when I consulted my schedule and my notes, it was cleat that no briefing had taken place on that date and eventually the CIA concurred in that. So their record-keeping is a little bit suspect."

Ultimately, this is a distraction from the fact that waterboarding was used in Aug '02 and the committee wasn't briefed until Sept '02. That's the story.

Anyone is liberal if you are comparing them to Morning Blow Joe.

We are ALL squeamish about the idea of torture. Yet we don't seem to have any problem with the brutality it sometimes takes to MAKE someone a prisoner.

PPP, please. There's a difference between subduing a potential prisoner and strapping him to a board and drowning him, AFTER he'd given up information of initial, LEGAL interrogation, but not the information you want to hear to prove a case for war.

And yes, even in some cases of subduing a prisoner, too much force can be used. We're not talking about one on one combat. We've all seen police videos to know that sometimes it goes too far.

I think they are gone now Carlos.. once they couldn't beat up on me by myself any more they left.. PPP and John didn't want to defend their position if they had to do it with others helping me...lol

Mika is a swine media sycophant that gained notoriety for scoffing at doing her job and reading a story about Paris Hilton a couple of years back. Paris Hilton is a recovering media whore that pretends to be people like Mika Bresinkski on reality shows and TV appearances.

To Bresinski the word "liberal" is based on a clique she believes she belongs to. She doesn't share any of their sentiments, and is really too dense to stand for any principles concordant with her supposed allegiance. She's as plastic a new reader as they come. Ignore her.

Anyway, I posed this question to some, and I was ignored, so I'll ask it again here:

Why were the proponents of "enhanced interrogation techniques" attempting to justify the use of "torture" as if the two separate acts were one and the same?

PPP always comes back for a sucker punch when he thinks no one's looking, Annette. He'll be back.

They are one in the same.. "enhanced interrogation techniques" is the term BushCo used to try to make Torture legal. That is what they called water boarding, walling, slaps and all the other things they did instead of torture in order to make it look good on paper.

That way it was "legal" and they could get by with it or so they thought. Then they could stand up and lie to everyone by telling the "truth" and saying we do not torture. We use "enhanced interrogation techniques".

We used Enhanced Interogation Techniques on 3 people after the worst mass murder this world has ever seen, to find out if other attacks were imminent.

Um...no. Torture (let's call it what it is, ok?) was used to get false evidence to justify the invasion & occupation of a sovereign nation for purposes of GREED.
Worst mass murder? that's been addressed above.
Only 3? Again, no. And even if it were ONLY 3, 1 of those 3 was waterboarded 183 times in 1 month. That works out to once every 4 hours for 31 days. That's acceptable to you? If so, shame on you. Millions of men & women have fought & died for this country's values, laws, and existence - yet you'd agree with the people who dishonor all that those who went before have done. Some principles - like upholding the US's treaty obligations & Constitution - are more important than saving one's own skin. It's called PATRIOTISM.

git or anyone - can you come up with the link to the photos from the Sydney newspaper that I posted the other night depicting some of the torture? (not prisoner abuse, not EIT, TORTURE!) I think some of the people who think that torture is justified need to have a look at them. I'm at work & shouldn't be posting even this... It was on a PTT thread. Thanks!

Yeah, I was trying to bait him...lol

Lex - they're playing semantics. We're calling it torture, because that what it's been defined as for the last 600 years, and they're calling it enhanced interrogation, because that's what the Bushies have been calling it for the last 5 years. It is the same act. They just can't bring themselves to say "pro-torture."

Annette -

You didn't seem to me to be having any problem defending yourself. You know the facts as well as most of us and much better than many.

Thanks Git.. I was trying.. It was fun.. They thought they were going to put me down.. neither of them know me well...lol

CEU

Here is the link you are looking for

http://www.smh.com.au/ftimages/2006/02/15/1139890768716.html

If Pelosi is complicit, she should also pay the price. Orange tan man made a statement yesterday that shows the real reason they think it's so important to tie her to this: The Democrats will drop the idea of investigating torture if one of their own is implicated (not a perfect quote but words to that effect). Hopefully he's as wrong as usual and the r's are the only ones that think party before country.

The when does torture start question is an interesting red herring, but you know the answer - and provided it in your discussion by describing before and after capture.

John and his ilk can try to rationalize immoral actions however they like. They know the difference between right and wrong but are too scared of their shadows to do the right thing.

Solely for background for those who thinks anyone who isn't a wingnut can't have military experience: Early in my 27-year Navy career I was a police officer. Towards the end I Commanded a combat unit. I also completed SERE and am familiar with the techniques used there (odd that they were openly called torture there).

Actually, Annette & Carl, I was looking for one of the palookas that show up here to defend EITs to answer the question. Thanks anyway, though. We all know the real reasons, but I just like seeing pinheads attempt to weasel out of an admission. It gives me pleasure.

These flakes can never answer a straight question, and always believe that offering up snarky retorts like a wanna-be hipster diminishes a counterpoint.

Oh, and they always look to engage in petty squabbles (which is why they show up here to taunt) to present their cases as worth arguing. Worth ridiculing is more like it.

PPP wrote:

>>>When does torture start?

I starts whenever I read comments like this one.

Why is the sky blue? When does life begin? What's the meaning of life? If we're only an illusion inside the matrix, why does anything matter?

And you ask me why I think you're a troll?

Paddy & Laffy linked to photos in a "> 2006 article in a Sydney, Australia newspaper. IMO, if the ones they decided NOT to release are anything like those, making them public would unleash a firestorm from moral people around the world.
GYPSY - DON'T CLICK ON THE LINK.

Sorry Lex... just trying to do my part...lol I really struggled to answer that in a very precise way too...lol

Ok all.. gonna run for a while.. see you this evening.. have fun, keep the trolls entertained for me...lol

Thanks, Annette. Maybe some of the "torture is justified" folks will be brave enough to look at the pictures of what they support.
(i doubt it, tho...)

Annette and Carl,

Sucker punch?

First, let me clarify. I think you are purposefully ignoring the FACT that I detest torture in any form. You are also IGNORING the fact that I think the international community is the body that should be investigating this. I mean, really, how AUTHENTIC is any investigation done by the perpetrator nation going to look to the rest of the world? By investigating this ourselves, we continue the "legacy" that W started, perpetuating the reasons the rest of the world gives for hating us; our arrogance. After all, is it anything but arrogance when the most powerful nation in the world decides, first, to investigate nothing, and then to hold the investigation in-house?

I have been against the US investigating this from the start. It's a detraction we cannot afford, and if the UN will finally get some balls and do its job, President Obama won't have to waste his political capital on it.

You are dead wrong about me on this issue.

And by the way, Annette, as a former Ranger, I can assure you, if you captured me, I could force you to have to beat me senseless to drag me in. Just because you have a weapon in your hands does not guarantee that I have to come quietly. The whole idea about capture is to bring the subject in alive. You are deluding yourself if you think that just because you have a smoker, you have me physically subdued. As I said, I'd have chosen death over capture. Use your gun on me, and you do me a favor, and you've also then killed an unarmed man.

It's one thing to discuss these things electronically. The reality is quite a different thing. You are discussing this entire issue intellectually, and I am glad you have that convenience. It means your armed services are doing their job, at least partly right.

Bob wrote;

And you ask me why I think you're a troll?

Actually, Bob, I don't think I've ever asked you why you think I'm a troll. I just assumed you thought it because I disagree with you. Isn't that what all hard liberals think?

PPP -

The Europeans want us to handle this ourselves. They know how isolationist vast portions of our populace are. I have told you this multiple times and you could read some European newspapers to confirm.

Basically, if we handle this ourselves to their satisfaction it will be the final proof that we can be trusted again. If they have to deal iwth it, we will be a pariah in the international community for a very long time.

You really should stop trying to speak for people you never listen to. You are ignorant on what the Europeans think. You sound exactly like the republicans. Ignorant, pompous, jagoffs.

I can see it now. The Europeans step in to enforce U.S. Law in the U.S. by means of the U.N.

Yeah. That will play well in Peoria.

We do we need the U.N. to enforce U.S. Law?

That is ridiculous on its face.

PPP,

It's not US law I'm worried about. There's plenty of time to deal with that. What we are talking about is international law, which has clearly been broken, and which you have used to make your case that waterboarding is illegal.

The US did not prosecute Japanese soldiers who had used the technique based on our laws. We didn't even prosecute them. The war tribunal did.

Why don't we have a war tribunal dealing with this issue?

You can call Rove, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush all the names you want, but so long as we do not submit to international law, our current administration is no better than the last.

To the servicemen and women here, particularly PPP, I ask a question:

Do you actually subdue these detainees, or do you just slap handcuffs on them.

Look, in my line of work, I've encountered individuals that were unwilling to cooperate with authorities. Some have bitten at people, lunged at folks with their legs shackled, and attempted to knock their own heads up against walls in order to make the point that they were not comfortable in captivity. I've not been on an actual battlefield, but I have been witness to many a perp restraining. There is no excuse for excessive force in the situations I've been involved in. There is also no excuse to "enhance" the "interrogating" of an individual, in my professional experience.

See, I did not want to indulge too much info on my background here, but do know that I deal with patients (or clients, as some choose to call them)...

See, there are times where I'm a bit...unprofessional here.

That's all I'll say, but I've actually dealt with situations like some of those described, and I'll tell you, the real way to deal with a wanton bastard is to offer an alternative to their point of view of the situation.

For example, say a man accused of murdering a teenager with a gun walks into a meeting place to speak to a perceived square like me. Do I immediately begin asking him about what he is accused of? No, I do not. I ask him how his day was, and go up from there, eventually letting him explain himself, sometimes without my ever broaching the subject of what he's charged with. Lawyers and investigators search for confessions and such. In my line of work, we search for the crux of the circumstances, and we rarely have to restrain an individual to do so. In all my years, I've never had to "interrogate" a person to get them to open up to me about a crime they perpetrated. It's just not feasible.

Once again, why were/are the proponents of "enhanced interrogation techniques" attempting to justify "torture," as if the two are of equal standing?

Now...some of the torture proponents here know how to talk their way out of admitting that screwy shit went down, but that's neither here nor there. They fool no one with the verbal gyrations. I'm asking a question pertaining to the fraud these proponents perpetrate obliviously.

Seriously.

What the fuck is wrong with these people attempting to normalize the previous administration's deviant conduct? Do they think that we are fools? I know some of us here throughout the Webosphere are media junkies, but do they really believe that we buy it when they commit to claiming stupid shit as fact?

I tell you, each of these so-called "ticking timebomb" scenarios offered up as justification for war and war crimes sounds like someone watched too many movies. Do they believe that our senses are dulled, too?

This country really has gone insane since the early 90s, and I blame the cable news environment primarily.

Sorry, Git,

I addressed myself in the last comment,

"Allow myself to introduce...myself"

"We used Enhanced Interogation Techniques on 3 people after the worst mass murder this world has ever seen, to find out if other attacks were imminent. "

What a gullable dumb shit you are. I see you have bought every word Cheney spews out even though he has solidly lied and sold his soul over and over.

PoliticalPartyShitter - Lets lock you in a coffin for 17 hours, let dogs attack you, waterboard you, make you walk a straight line with your ankles handcuffed while naked, rape and sodomize you... and then lets see if you want to continue talking symantics or if you just want to beg for death like they probably did. Are you proud of yourself? Your opinion isn't worth spit.

This is usually what passes for an espousal by the torture proponents nowadays:

"Tortu...erm, I mean enhanced interrogation techniques saved countless millions of American lives. We should be applauding the effectiveness of the enhanced interrogators."

Are these people jukeboxes for the malefactors or what?

My little satire is closer to the truth than the various excuses offered up in order to absolve the perpetrators of the war crimes.

Another breathless justification of EITs:

"Say, there's a little girl with a bomb strapped to her back. The bomb is on a timer for ten hours. The only person that knows the location, age, race, and sex of the girl in question, as well as the switch to shut the bomb off is now in custody and refuses to comply with his interrogators. WHAT DO YOU DO, I ASK YOU! WHAT DO YOU DO!!!!"

Something that's been bothering me a great deal in this finger-pointing contest against Pelosi is the fact that it was a Republican President & Vice President who initiated the torture in the first place, wasn't it? It seems to me the ire should be directed toward whatever GOPer was in charge of Congress when the CIA supposedly told - or not - that they were employing waterboarding in 2002.

Another thing that's bothering me about this Nancy Pelosi debacle is the fact that she wasn't even Speaker of the House in 2002. It wasn't until 2003 that she became Speaker! Why isn't anyone talking about the former Speaker instead of honing in on Pelosi?

Also, I'm QUITE sure she wasn't the only one in the room when this information was discussed in Congress and there had to have been REPUBLICANS present at the time too. Why aren't THEY being raked over the coals as well?

Actually Mrspeel, Pelosi didn't become speaker until 2006. I am in absolute agreement with your line of questioning though.

Bottom line, republicans are looking for a scapegoat so as to make the democratic party look 'complicit' in torture-gate. Since Pelosi is the head of the House, she is their scapegoat target.

They're just shooting themselves in the foot however. Pelosi is calling for an investigation to prove her innocence. Not to mention, even if she was 'informed' of said torture back in 2002, there is nothing she could have done about it anyway. She was not allowed to discuss the briefings with anyone on the grounds of national security and it was still the Bush administration's call regarding using these torture techniques.

JM Ashby,

I just can't allow you to carry this fucked up view of me that you have.

I detest torture. Do you get that? Obviously you DIDN'T, or you wouldn't have written what you wrote just now. I detest it. Do you get that?

Do you have me confused with someone else?

PPP, I completely get that a combatant might have to be beaten senseless to be subdued. I even get that in the heat of battle, throughout history, even very moral men have flipped out and done very nasty things to prisoners - or maybe it truly wasn't possible to transport them anywhere, so they just shot them after surrender. But... we are not talking about that here. We are talking about doing truly horrendous things to people entirely under our control, by people not remotely in danger themselves, to extract unreliable or false information - and they did it repeatedly. If this were done to us/you, you would call it torture.

The Torture Treaty that Ronald Reagan championed required the U.S. to pass laws making the torture as described by the treaty illegal in the U.S. We did that. Cheney, et. al., is guilty of violating U.S. law. The laws violated by the EITs were in the Articles of Impeachment that Kucinich read last September. There is no need to invoke international laws. Our laws on torture are the same as the international laws.

Try again.

All we need is a Special Prosecutor to start an investigation. If we are not competent to enforce our own laws then I want an explanation of why from the conservatives that politicized U.S. Law Enforcement.

Why can't we enforce our own laws?

Because Republicans are criminal conspirators.

Sad day.