• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Rumsfeld Rejected Waterboarding, Pelosi didn't

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Rumsfeld Rejected Waterboarding

Pelosi Did Not Object After Being Informed Of Practice
By MICHAEL P. TREMOGLIE, The Bulletin
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
In a role reversal that some will find troublesome, it has been learned that, in December 2002, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld rejected a request to use waterboarding to interrogate terrorist prisoners. But, other sources claim, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi D-Calif., did not object to its use after she had been informed of the practice months earlier in September 2002.

Mr. Rumsfeld was, and is, a lightning rod for criticism by Democrats and leftists. He has been accused by some Democrats, and others who oppose the global war on terror, of not only sanctioning the torture of al-Qaida and Taliban prisoners, but proactively ordering it.

Yet, according to testimony before the House Select Committee on Intelligence, Dr. Stephen A Cambone, Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, said Mr. Rumsfeld had rejected a request to use waterboarding as an interrogation technique. The request came from Joint Task Force 170 (JTF-170), the military’s team responsible for questioning prisoners at Guantanamo.

The committee, of which Mrs. Pelosi was the ranking member, held the hearing, which they called “Critical Need for Interrogation in the Global War on Terror,” on July 14, 2004. Mr. Cambone was one of a panel of three testifying about the efficacy of interrogations.

He said the interrogations provided very valuable information about terrorists, terrorist groups, terrorist networks and terrorist plans. He also said that interrogations yielded information on terrorists that was not able to be gleaned from any other type of intelligence collection.

“For example, interrogations at Guantanamo have yielded information on individuals connected to al-Qaida’s efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction,” he said, “(also) front companies and accounts supporting al-Qaida and other terrorist operations.”

He went on to detail how certain al-Qaida members at Guantanamo had critical information about planned attacks on the U.S. and that on June 17, 2002, U.S. Southern Command commander, Gen James T. Hill, requested a review of interrogation methods.

The review called for guidelines in questioning detainees. It wanted to establish “rules of engagement” for interrogations.

In response to this, JTF-170 proposed techniques divided into three categories. Based on the opinion of the Staff Judge Advocate, Gen. Hill ruled Category I and II techniques were “legal and humane.” He then requested a review and approval, via the Joint Chiefs of Staff, of Category III techniques. This set of techniques were to be used for prisoners “who resisted [JTF-170’s] current interrogation methods.”

Gen. Hill wanted “counter-resistant” methods that they could “lawfully employ” testified Mr. Cambone. On Nov. 27, 2002, Defense Department officials authorized all of the Category I and II methods. They authorized only one of the Category III methods. This was the use of mild non-injurious physical contact.

Mr. Rumsfeld approved of this authorization on Dec. 2, 2002. Mr. Cambone then testified what techniques Mr. Rumsfeld did not approve — one of which was waterboarding.

“He did not approve for use from Category III,” he said, “the use of a wet towel and dripping water.”

Ironically, three months earlier, in September 2002, Nancy Pelosi, who now wants to prosecute those engaged in waterboarding, had been informed about the use of this tactic and did not object.

According to a December 2007 Washington Post story, “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 ... on that day, no objections were raised.”

Donald Rumsfeld, the man liberals and some Democrats accused of being a torturer, had disapproved of the use of waterboarding, a method that had been, at the very least, tacitly endorsed by Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats who are now expressing outrage about it.

http://www.thebulletin.us/articles/2009/04/29/top_stories/doc49f821cd5d0ae182977392.txt
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The reason they need hearings and trials...If Pelosi knowingly went along with breaking the law- they should charge her right along with the other attorneys/authorities that violated the law......
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
The reason they need hearings and trials...If Pelosi knowingly went along with breaking the law- they should charge her right along with the other attorneys/authorities that violated the law......

Violated what law?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
The reason they need hearings and trials...If Pelosi knowingly went along with breaking the law- they should charge her right along with the other attorneys/authorities that violated the law......

Violated what law?

US Military Code and International Law as prescribed under the Geneva Conventions....

Read the Tagabu report...
 

Mike

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
The reason they need hearings and trials...If Pelosi knowingly went along with breaking the law- they should charge her right along with the other attorneys/authorities that violated the law......

Violated what law?

That's what I say. If that enhanced interrogation could have saved U.S. citizens lives.............."What Law"?

When all is said and done in this, it looks like Bush will come out the good guy. From what I've seen so far.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
You seem to be in the majority Mike.

Fifty-eight percent (58%) believe the Obama administration’s recent release of CIA memos about the harsh interrogation methods used on terrorism suspects endangers the national security of the United States.

Among all voters, 42% say terrorism suspects were tortured by the United States, but 37% disagree. The number who believe America used torture is unchanged from October 2007.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Terrorists are not covered under the Geneva Convention.

Which of these tortured had been convicted under either Federal Law or Miltitary Tribunal of Terrorism?.....
By signing onto the Geneva Conventions Rules the US adopted into Federal and Military Code the rules as they set forth-- the reason the US Supreme Court ruled against Bush and said they had a right to be heard by a court or tribunal.....

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.


As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.

Our founding fathers faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations.

Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.
Jan. 20, 2009

Our government... teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.
Louis D. Brandeis

Experience teaches us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent.
Louis D. Brandeis

This sums up GW's crew perfectly:

The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.
Louis D. Brandeis
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Can you please provide for me where in the Constitution the rights of foreign terrorists are mentioned? I'd like to read that part for myself and I can't find it.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Silver said:
How is one a terrorist without being convicted of being a terrorist?

How can you convict one of being a terrorist without a criminal code that defines and makes illegal terrorism?

So because there is no criminal code that defines amd makes illegal terrorism it's okay to label them "terrorist" and torture them?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Silver said:
Sandhusker said:
Silver said:
How is one a terrorist without being convicted of being a terrorist?

How can you convict one of being a terrorist without a criminal code that defines and makes illegal terrorism?

So because there is no criminal code that defines amd makes illegal terrorism it's okay to label them "terrorist" and torture them?

Number 1, I"ve thought about his quite a bit, and I don't think waterboarding is torture.

Number 2, what's the alternative, Silver?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Silver said:
Sandhusker said:
Silver said:
How is one a terrorist without being convicted of being a terrorist?

How can you convict one of being a terrorist without a criminal code that defines and makes illegal terrorism?

So because there is no criminal code that defines amd makes illegal terrorism it's okay to label them "terrorist" and torture them?

Bullpuckey- there are numerous state, federal, military, and international codes of law on terrorism- and defining both domestic and international terrorists.....In fact the executive order that GW used to hold the Gitmo detainees sets out what terrorists are- and how they shall be treated under all rules of military code- and their right to hearings or tribunals-- but thats where he got in trouble with the courts when he didn't even follow that....


Under King George- if Cheney or Rumsfeld designated you a terrorist- you were one- and from there on had no rights and from then on need not be treated under any of the laws of the land or the civilized nations of the world .... :shock:

Except the Supreme Court disagreed- and the US military and International investigators disagreed- and now the new President disagrees along with most legal scholars- many who think that those attorneys/administration officials that blatently went around/violated US law should be prosecuted to prevent the same type of usurption of US/International Law from happening again....

I thought the rightwingernuts would be happy to see an investigation- and if involved, Pelosi exposed- and prosecuted.... :roll:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Silver said:
Sandhusker said:
How can you convict one of being a terrorist without a criminal code that defines and makes illegal terrorism?

So because there is no criminal code that defines amd makes illegal terrorism it's okay to label them "terrorist" and torture them?

Bullpuckey- there are numerous state, federal, military, and international codes of law on terrorism- and defining both domestic and international terrorists.....In fact the executive order that GW used to hold the Gitmo detainees sets out what terrorists are- and how they shall be treated under all rules of military code- and their right to hearings or tribunals-- but thats where he got in trouble with the courts when he didn't even follow that....


Under King George- if Cheney or Rumsfeld designated you a terrorist- you were one- and from there on had no rights and from then on need not be treated under any of the laws of the land or the civilized nations of the world .... :shock:

Except the Supreme Court disagreed- and the US military and International investigators disagreed- and now the new President disagrees along with most legal scholars- many who think that those attorneys/administration officials that blatently went around/violated US law should be prosecuted to prevent the same type of usurption of US/International Law from happening again....

I thought the rightwingernuts would be happy to see an investigation- and if involved, Pelosi exposed- and prosecuted.... :roll:

we are,.. but if we jump in and agree,.. it might slow down the liberal justice process.. :wink:
 

Silver

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Silver said:
Sandhusker said:
How can you convict one of being a terrorist without a criminal code that defines and makes illegal terrorism?

So because there is no criminal code that defines amd makes illegal terrorism it's okay to label them "terrorist" and torture them?

Number 1, I"ve thought about his quite a bit, and I don't think waterboarding is torture.

Number 2, what's the alternative, Silver?

I've never been waterboarded (is that a word?), so I can't make an informed opinion on it. Experts don't seem to agree either.

The alternative.... good question. My problem is philosophical. Engaging in practices on other peoples that we deem inapropriate / unconstitutional to use on our own people is a slippery slope. Especially when we would like other peoples to want to emulate us rather than seek to destroy us.
I believe that if we start acting like 'them' then we have lost and they have won.
So what is the alternative? Dunno. But how about this..... The US has never been attacked by a country with a McDonalds in it. Think about that for a minute.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
OT, "Bullpuckey- there are numerous state, federal, military, and international codes of law on terrorism- and defining both domestic and international terrorists....."

You live in Montana, what's the Montana law on terrorism?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Silver, "The alternative.... good question. My problem is philosophical. Engaging in practices on other peoples that we deem inapropriate / unconstitutional to use on our own people is a slippery slope. Especially when we would like other peoples to want to emulate us rather than seek to destroy us.
I believe that if we start acting like 'them' then we have lost and they have won.
So what is the alternative? Dunno. But how about this..... The US has never been attacked by a country with a McDonalds in it. Think about that for a minute.

At the time that we were waterboading, it had not been deemed inappropriate/unconstitutional. In fact, efforts were made to make sure that it was kosher and the green light was given - and the same liberals that are mouthing off now were involved in giving approval.

It's nice to think that if we're "nice guys" that others will emulate us, but name one war where our servicemen were not tortured. The Germans did it, the Japanese did it, Koreans, Chinese, Vietnamese, Iraqi, etc.... I think it's been proven many times over that the other guys are going to do what they're going to do.

We're still not acting like "them". Our guys get beat up, they get maimed for life, they get beheaded.... We're not leaving a mark on their guys. We're not doing much more than a fraternity hazing routine.

Maybe we do need to build more McDonalds! Maybe we'll really win them over with Wendy's, that's the good stuff.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
OT, "Bullpuckey- there are numerous state, federal, military, and international codes of law on terrorism- and defining both domestic and international terrorists....."

You live in Montana, what's the Montana law on terrorism?

Title 45 MCA

That is the Criminal Law Act that covers all facets of laws violated by criminals....
 
Top