Pelosi

[Lurker]

Because you are not really asking for a discussion. We have been over this.

Stop making dishonest demands for something you will never agree was provided anyway.

You can't find any examples. Got it.

When I'm engaged in what I consider a dishonest debate I respond directly, presenting my argument and pointing out why the person is wrong. (see any discussion I've had with Embar for example)

Just saying.

=====

Kulaf,
Jecks didn't think so a few days ago. Also, you are making assumptions that people were given a big enough picture of what was happening. It took a long time for enough information to come out before we knew how systemic the torture regime was. Proposing legislation banning the exact thing they were briefed on would be a drastic step without knowing the complete picture, and we have no reason to believe the briefings were that detailed.

[Trollbait]

Jecks didn't think so a few days ago.

I still don't. My "good catch" comment was in reference to the other dems being caught up in it.

But a good question is why you would use my opinion as an example to refute Kulaf's opinion?

Are you saying my opinion holds some weight with you or only when I agree with you?

[Partha]

It's simple, Embar. When a few people were briefed about things they were forbidden to talk about, even to their limited committees or staff, they were powerless to stop things. As more people found out what was going on and how widespread and systemic it was people moved to stop it. This isn't complicated. Not sure why Jecks thought it was a "good catch".

That is such bullshit. They could easily introduce legislation without any reference to any classified material.

And how are they going to pass it by themselves?

[Lurker]

But a good question is why you would use my opinion as an example to refute Kulaf's opinion?

Are you saying my opinion holds some weight with you or only when I agree with you?

Using your opinion prevents the typical "you are only saying that to protect Pelosi!" response.

I guess I'm also saying you aren't always wrong.

[Kulaf]

Because you are not really asking for a discussion. We have been over this.

Stop making dishonest demands for something you will never agree was provided anyway.

You can't find any examples. Got it.

When I'm engaged in what I consider a dishonest debate I respond directly, presenting my argument and pointing out why the person is wrong. (see any discussion I've had with Embar for example)

Just saying.

=====

Kulaf,
Jecks didn't think so a few days ago. Also, you are making assumptions that people were given a big enough picture of what was happening. It took a long time for enough information to come out before we knew how systemic the torture regime was. Proposing legislation banning the exact thing they were briefed on would be a drastic step without knowing the complete picture, and we have no reason to believe the briefings were that detailed.

Ok let me put on my hypothetical Congresional hat. I am sitting in a meeting of the Intel committee and one of the Executive says that they may have to cut off prisoners testicles to get them to give up information. Since I am against the forced removal of testicles you can be damn sure I am going to introduce legislation regarding the ethical treatment of detainees and POW's to make sure that the use of testicular removal is not advanced.

Powerless......hardly.

[Partha]

And it will be voted down by the lockstep Republican majority that was in place in 2003. So then what? Go Galt?

[Harlowe]

For the most part, this all seems like some massive diversionary tactic from the real criminals here - Bush & Cheney.

[Partha]

Yes, except it's not a diversion.

I mean, if they want to claim that what was done was absolutely perfectly legal, then there's no reason for them to hack on Pelosi for approving it.

If they wanted to be consistent, then while damning Pelosi for not laying down on the train track to stop it, then they should be damning Bush/Cheney/Yoo/Bybee/Addington et. al. for approving and driving the use of torture against our own laws.

The truth is, they're full of shit, and they know it, and they feel a little guilty that they support torture (Well, some of them. Some, I think, are Asperger babies), and so they have to double down to squash that bad icky feeling away before it develops into a full fledged conscience. They're screaming louder to stop the voices.

[Kulaf]

I think it has to do with hypocricy more than anything. Calling for someone elses head when you didn't do all you could do is the issue I think.

[Kulaf]

And it will be voted down by the lockstep Republican majority that was in place in 2003. So then what? Go Galt?

So why bother trying right? That the Democrat credo now?

[Lurker]

I stand by my first post in this thread and Ddrak's rephrasing. I want a full investigation into the architects of the torture regime as well as those briefed about it. It's clear that the Democrats in Congress tried to stop things as more and more information became public, but we need to know why alarms weren't raised earlier. It's possible they weren't properly briefed on the full scope of things. It's possible they just failed to act out of fear and cowardice.

Saying the Republicans would have blocked attempts to stop things, which they ended up doing, is not a good excuse not to try.

And of course, as Harlowe said, this is being used as a distraction by the Republicans. Quote of the day is from Josh Marshall, who sarcastically said, "Focus people, focus. Let's not get distracted by what happened and lose sight of who was briefed about it." Who was briefed and when is important, but it's nowhere near as important as who approved and implemented all this. Not even close.

[Kulaf]

I may not like Russ Feingold's politics.......but I at least admire the mans Don Quixote like tenacity to fight the good fight on issues there is seemingly little to no support for.

[Embar Angylwrath]

@ Lurker... I gave you a link that were some examples of Democrats fighting some of the $17 billion in cuts. I probably should have been more succint and said "fighting some of the REAL budget cuts Obama was trying to make". Some of that 17 billion is shuffling, some are deferred costs, but when he got into real REAL budget cuts, cuts that reduced or eliminated programs, Dems were quick to move to protect their pet programs. Do you disagree with that?

Also, look at the timeline again of the hearings. There were many hearings on the subject of EITs. Some to the full committee. Its preposterous to say that too few knew. Also, Harmon knew very early on, and at least she tried to do something. Why didn't any other Democrat try to write even a protest letter? What prevented them from taking the 30 minutes out of their day to do even that small gesture of protest?

You also didn't address Feinstein. Look at her response. "In the abstract"???? Are you actually buying the gruel?

[Lurker]

Embar,
As I said, your original statement was false. The "Democratic party" is not moving "to block most of the 17 billion dollars in budget cuts Obama has proposed", and yet you said it was.

You also didn't address Feinstein. Look at her response. "In the abstract"???? Are you actually buying the gruel?

Well... look at the abstract way you've excused torture on these boards. We were just making people "uncomfortable", right? Sleep deprivation, stress positions, lights, noises... it all sounds innocent enough until you know how they were actually used. It's entirely possible that the briefings were abstract in the same way you attempted to whitewash the techniques. Are you saying that isn't a possibility?

I want a full investigation because we need to know why Congressional oversight failed but it isn't the central issue here no matter how much the Republicans want it to be.

[Partha]

And it will be voted down by the lockstep Republican majority that was in place in 2003. So then what? Go Galt?

So why bother trying right? That the Democrat credo now?

We've already determined that if Pelosi should be found guilty of a crime, she should be charged. Now are you willing to stipulate that Bush and Cheney, as architects of the torture regime, should also be charged?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Well... look at the abstract way you've excused torture on these boards. We were just making people "uncomfortable", right? Sleep deprivation, stress positions, lights, noises... it all sounds innocent enough until you know how they were actually used. It's entirely possible that the briefings were abstract in the same way you attempted to whitewash the techniques. Are you saying that isn't a possibility?

I want a full investigation because we need to know why Congressional oversight failed but it isn't the central issue here no matter how much the Republicans want it to be.

Ah, I see, another dodge. You seem to have an inability to answer questions in a direct manner. Why don't you try it again. My question wasn't a "compare and contrast" exercise between Feinstein and me. I asked you if you found Feinstein's characterization of those breifing as just "abstract" with no real world relevance to be plausible.

I await your next dodge...

[Harlowe]

He didn't dodge anything, come on. If that is a dodge then so are just about every post from both sides on this. Its like people putting their fingers in their ears and going "lalalala", rather than listening to what the other is saying. People have said numerous times (here) that they want a full investigation and furthermore that the criminals should be charged no matter what party they are affiliated with, which is a far cry more than what we are hearing from the right. Just because people aren't falling all over themself to immediately crucify Pelosi over the actual architects of the whole thing, does not make them "in support of her" or hypocritical about their outrage. They want an investigation and criminals punished. Period.

The fact remains that people on the right are crying for Pelosi's head as some sort of diversionary fall guy for this whole mess, while refusing to acknowledge the actual criminals, the architects and instigators. Which is truly absurd.

All cuplable parties should face the music, Bush & Cheney should be first in line.

[Lurker]

^^ what Harlowe said.

And Embar, I answered your question directly. Repeating... "It's entirely possible that the briefings were abstract in the same way you attempted to whitewash the techniques." Try reading next time.

And you accusing others of dodging is beyond funny considering you never answer questions. Here's one you never answered... Is it acceptable for other countries to use the same techniques against our soldiers and citizens?

[Trollbait]

Allow me to preface by saying I am against torture. Having said that, the question posed by Lurker is entirely dishonest in its nature.

Is it acceptable for other countries to use the same techniques against our soldiers and citizens?

Firstly, they have and they do. This does not justify our actions but it certainly helps to have all of the facts. Casting us as a nation in the role of super villain is not helpful to the discussion. Any nation will act in what it perceives to be its own best interests and very few nations have our alleged view of civility towards our enemies.

Secondly, if you are attempting to use this question as a matter of fairness then the question is not only dishonest in what it implies (that being that other nations do not or have not tortured Americans) but also patently ridiculous in its naivete.

Of course it is not personally nor morally acceptable for other countries or entities or organizations to use these methods against our soldiers. The very question is superfluous.

As to claims of culpability, accessories to a fact are just as guilty as the perpetrator by law. With that in mind I feel it is absolutely relevant to know who knew what and when they knew it and what they were capable of doing about it.

[Lurker]

My question wasn't dishonest. It was posed in this thread (question on page 5) when Embar made clear that the torture we inflicted was acceptable because it was used against people hostile to our country. Embar never answered. He dodged and failed in an epic struggle that made Harlowe's epic struggle look like a couple one liners.