Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

[jetsetter]

10 reasons why Nancy Pelosi is in deep trouble over her CIA outburst
Posted By: Toby Harnden at May 15, 2009 at 17:08:26

Could Nancy Pelosi eventually lose her job as Speaker of the House over her incendiary allegation that the CIA lied to her and misled Congress? It's possible and here's why:

1. Her shifting explanations about what she knew about water-boarding and when she knew it indicate at the very least inconsistency and economy with the truth. Check out some of her differing statements here.

2. CIA briefers are professionals - being a briefer is a specialism for fast-track career analysts within the Agency's Directorate of Intelligence. A CIA briefing given to two senior members of Congress without their staffs present is not a seat-of-the-pants kind of thing. It's well-documented and very, very carefully done. It's hard to imagine why the CIA would now want to lie about such a briefing. Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, a former CIA spokeswoman, was on Fox just now saying she knew the briefer and that he was a model of integrity. That indicates he's well known within the Agency and wil be getting a lot of support.

3. Pelosi's performance at her press conference was pitiful. Check out two great accounts of it from the Washington Post's Dana Milbank here and the Washington Times's Joe Curl here.

4. The derision for her performance yesterday is bipartisan. Republicans are being much more vocal about it but Democrats are laughing too.

5. Obama is trying very hard to placate the CIA, which is very unhappy indeed over his release of the four memos about interrogation techniques. Pelosi has cut right across that. Incurring the wrath of a popular president is not a clever thing to do.

6. The mainstream media - a key factor in the political centre of gravity - is not with her on this one. Check out the sceptical take of the venerated greybeard Dan Balz of the Washington Post here.

7. There's little love lost between Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, the number two Democrat in the House. She did't back him for the Whip job, instead pushing her friend John Murtha, Pennsylvania's king of pork. Glenn Thrush of Politico notes that his initial words yesterday were not especially supportive.

8. Leon Panetta - a former colleague of Pelosi's in the House delegation from California - was overruled by Obama on the release of the four interrogation memos. He must be seething about Pelosi's allegation and concerned about his credibility among CIA rank and file. Panetta, a former White House chief of staff, is very well connected among Democrats.

9. Pelosi's attempt to say that the CIA was lied to her about whether water-boarding was being used because it wanted to divert attention from lies over WMD was extremely clumsy and made no sense. As an institution, the CIA was far from slavishly supportive of the Bush administration - something that drew the ire of, for instance, Vice President Dick Cheney. Trying to make the CIA a political football was reckless - the Agency knows how to fight back and get its story out.

10. Her lapse into hard-Left talking points about how the CIA lies all the time so it was hardly worth complaining about is out of tune with the Obama administration, which wants to pretend at least to be trying to occupying the centre ground. Her clear contempt for the concept of "bipartisanship" - she'd rather ram her agenda through on a party-line vote - had already put her at odds with Obama.

Ed Morrisey of Hot Air gets it about right: "I wouldn't predict her ouster, but it wouldn't surprise me, either."

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_ha...r_cia_outburst

[SpitfireMK461]

We get Pelosi is retarded. It's fairly obvious. Doesn't change torture being illegal nor take away from the fact that the Bush administration was doing it.

Knowing about a crime and not saying anything about it is bad. Committing that crime is far worse.

[jetsetter]

Originally Posted by SpitfireMK461

We get Pelosi is retarded. It's fairly obvious. Doesn't change torture being illegal nor take away from the fact that the Bush administration was doing it.

Knowing about a crime and not saying anything about it is bad. Committing that crime is far worse.

Torturing certain people is "illegal", the act itself is not. Plenty other administrations used torture in interrogating spies and others so don't push this off on Bush.

[Firecat]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

Torturing certain people is "illegal", the act itself is not. Plenty other administrations used torture in interrogating spies and others so don't push this off on Bush.

Can you cite the law which states that you can torture some people, but can't torture others?

[jetsetter]

Originally Posted by Firecat

Can you cite the law which states that you can torture some people, but can't torture others?

The "law" leaves out people. We can't torture a uniformed soldier of a foreign army for example but take away the uniform and the country and questions arise.

[Firecat]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

The "law" leaves out people. We can't torture a uniformed soldier of a foreign army for example but take away the uniform and the country and questions arise.

Where are you getting this from?

[jetsetter]

Originally Posted by Firecat

Where are you getting this from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture#Geneva_Conventions

[Dogbert]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture#Geneva_Conventions

Uhhhh...

Also nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it, and nationals of a neutral State in the territory of a combatant State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, cannot claim the protection of GCIV if their home state has normal diplomatic representation in the State that holds them (Article 4), as their diplomatic representatives can take steps to protect them. The requirement to treat persons with "humanity" implies that it is still prohibited to torture individuals not protected by the Convention.

And, even though still technically legal by your definition, it's still being proven over and over again that it's not effective.

EDIT: Legal in this country. Not only is torture illegal in most other developed countries, but any evidence gained through said torture is inadmissible.

Originally Posted by jetsetter

Torturing certain people is "illegal", the act itself is not. Plenty other administrations used torture in interrogating spies and others so don't push this off on Bush.

How is any other administration relevant? By that logic, we should just never bring anything like this up, because "the guy before did it, too".

[Firecat]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture#Geneva_Conventions

There are other conventions which cover torture and have nothing to do with uniformed prisoners or enemy combatants. Not to mention various other laws and treaties which prohibit torture, against anyone

[Twerp128]

I was in the Notre Dame area today. Saw a bunch of protesters all meet up for muffins before they went and made asshats out of themselves. I wish I had Saturday's off so I could go stand on a street corner and cry.

[nouseferaname90]

Originally Posted by Twerp128

I was in the Notre Dame area today. Saw a bunch of protesters all meet up for muffins before they went and made asshats out of themselves. I wish I had Saturday's off so I could go stand on a street corner and cry.

I really don't know about people like that. If you believe in something yourself, you can go ahead and practice it. Don't impose your beliefs on others.

You can probably tell I'm pro choice and don't give a rats arse of who can marry who.

[freeferrarisdonotexist]

Originally Posted by SpitfireMK461

We get Pelosi is retarded. It's fairly obvious. Doesn't change torture being illegal nor take away from the fact that the Bush administration was doing it.

Knowing about a crime and not saying anything about it is bad. Committing that crime is far worse.

Exactly. Pelosi is a complete t**t, she's been waffling things for ages. The issue here is torture, not the idiot who is trying to cover for herself.

Originally Posted by jetsetter

Torturing certain people is "illegal", the act itself is not. Plenty other administrations used torture in interrogating spies and others so don't push this off on Bush.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe your constitution prevents torture against anyone? If only torturing "certain" people were illegal I think the issue would have been raised before- who is classified as being in that "certain" group?

Regardless, in my personal views I generally oppose torture and vehemently oppose the type that went on in Guantamo Bay. Few of them got a trial. Many people were not actually convicted before being sent there, and those who admitted "guilt" under torture are in no way proven guilty due to the torture effect (ie, when someone is given too much pain they will say what the torturer wants, not necessarily the truth). However, I would not oppose torture in extreme situations where other's life is immediately at risk and the person has been provenguilty.

My opinion, anyway.

EDIT: Damn, I responded without reading the rest of the page.... ah well.

[jetsetter]

but I believe your constitution prevents torture against anyone?

The Constitution applies to American citizens and that is it.

[SpitfireMK461]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

The Constitution applies to American citizens and that is it.

I'm pretty sure the framers did not intend to extend the basic human rights they define to only American citizens, but to all persons, else all those immigrants that have made up such a massive portion of our nation for over a hundred years are completely unprotected. But perhaps you disagree, which would be fairly disturbing.

[efoolution]

Originally Posted by German constitution

The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world.

... I agree with that 100% ...

It´s strange to see how our Constitution after the war was (in big parts) shaped by the Americans and their Allies (stupid people around here say it´s been "dictated" to us) and some generations later, it´s (some) americans that think civil or human rights end at their borders ...

[jetsetter]

Originally Posted by efoolution

... I agree with that 100% ...

It´s strange to see how our Constitution after the war was (in big parts) shaped by the Americans and their Allies (stupid people around here say it´s been "dictated" to us) and some generations later, it´s (some) americans that think civil or human rights end at their borders ...

Then you have the right to bear arms and I suggest you go out and exercise that right. Have fun.

[tigger]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

The Constitution applies to American citizens and that is it.

That's right. But that doesn't mean we can go do whatever the fuck we want to others because, "the Constitution applies to American citizens and that is it." Just for a little context, let me remind you of something else our founding fathers thought up:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Or, you know, the right not to be stuck in a chain-link pen in the tropics for years while someone pretends to drown you 3 times a day. I don't think our founding fathers would've been to big on that.

[SpitfireMK461]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

Then you have the right to bear arms and I suggest you go out and exercise that right. Have fun.

Read that again.

The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world.

And to add some clarification to what that might mean.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

While the American constitution, or almost any constitution, does not lay legal claim to the entirety of the world (so your little gun quip is irrelevant), many have statements similar to these to emphasize that no matter who you are or where you are, you are afforded basic human rights from the moment you begin life or have coinciding documents to do the same. As pointed out, Americans have the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

Arresting persons without a charge backed up by evidence, torturing them, and not putting them into a fair trial goes against everything this country was founded on. I don't care if it has been done for the entirety of the existence of the United States of America. There is no excuse for what has gone on at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, or any other off shore prison. Save the punishment until after conviction.

[Dogbert]

Originally Posted by SpitfireMK461

Arresting persons without a charge backed up by evidence, torturing them, and not putting them into a fair trial goes against everything this country was founded on.

Exactly. And to add a rather topical comparison to your statement, we're no better than Iran of any of our other political or ideological "enemies" if we don't hold to any of those truths that our country was founded on, and indeed defined our independence on.

[jetsetter]

Any scared that if Obama kicks the bucket we have Biden then Pelosi?