« Back to story "Billionaire Soros Bankrolling Calls for'Torture'Probe"

Story Comments

Posted by: mesodude 7 months, 4 weeks ago

This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.

All Comments Share Story Report

  • 78%
    mesodude7 months, 4 weeks ago

    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

    There's nothing to probe, pc. Right? We don't torture so why are cons so nervous and panicky? ;-P

    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 3) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
    Reply

    10 Replies

    loading loading ...
    • 38%
      nostalgia7 months, 4 weeks ago

      This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

      Be careful what you ask for
      Witch hunts often come back to haunt you

      Democratic complicity in Bush's torture regimen
      The Washington Post reports today that the Bush administration, beginning in 2002, repeatedly briefed leading Congressional Democrats on the Senate and House Intelligence Committees -- including, at various times, Jay Rockefeller, Nancy Pelosi, and Jane Harman -- regarding the CIA's "enhanced interrogation methods," including details about waterboarding and other torture measures. With one exception (Harman, who vaguely claims to have sent a letter to the CIA), these lawmakers not only failed to object to these policies, but affirmatively supported them.

      This information was almost certainly leaked to the Post by intelligence officials who are highly irritated -- understandably so -- from watching the manipulative spectacle whereby these Democrats now prance around as outraged victims of policies to which they deliberately acquiesced, when they weren't fully supporting them. Numerous liberal bloggers are already drawing the only conclusions that can be drawn, and expressing their outrage and horror at the Democratic Party leadership. Those sentiments are indisputably appropriate, and I just want to add a few more points to them.

      Jay Rockefeller was one of the key Democrats briefed on the torture methods who never objected. But it's far worse than that. In September, 2006, Rockefeller was one of 12 Senate Democrats to vote in favor of the Military Commissions Act, one of the principal purposes of which was to explicitly authorize the CIA's "enhanced interrogation program" to proceed (even though it continues to be illegal under the Geneva Conventions). Thus, not only did Rockefeller remain silent when continuously briefed on illegal torture methods by the CIA, he then voted to legalize those methods by voting in favor of one of the most Draconian laws in modern American history. That law also retroactively immunized government officials from any liability for past lawbreaking.

      The Democratic Party in Congress is largely controlled and led by those who have enabled and affirmatively supported the worst aspects of the Bush foreign policy and the most severe abuses of our country's political values.

      And efforts to apologize for what these Congressional Democrats have done by claiming that they "were virtually helpless to respond," or suggesting that knowingly inconsequential expressions of private protest are somehow noble, are counter-productive. Why excuse or apologize for the profound failure of those who seek leadership positions on the Intelligence Committee -- who, after all, are being briefed precisely because they are expected to act when they learn of illegal behavior -- when they abdicate their responsibilities? That only encourages such malfeasance to continue.
      http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/09/...

      (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
      Reply

      9 Replies

      loading loading ...
      • 100%
        Tangent0017 months, 4 weeks ago

        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

        If Democrats were complicit, then Democrats should pay the piper. I'm not going to place party before my country.

        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 5) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        loading loading ...
        • 100%
          mesodude7 months, 4 weeks ago

          This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

          But according to cons, no one's done anything wrong so why are you trying to scare anyone?

          (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 5) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
          Reply

          7 Replies

          loading loading ...
          • 50%
            nostalgia7 months, 4 weeks ago

            This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

            How much advice do you think attorneys at the Justice Dept will be willing to give Obama if they think the next administration may go on a witch hunt and prosecute them for the advice?

            We are descending to the level of third-world totalitarian banana-republic dictatorships

            Are they going to look back this far?

            But according to one former agent, Michael Scheuer, the extraordinary rendition programme that has so tainted the agency during the Bush administration actually began in the Clinton administration, when Panetta would, or should, have been fully aware of it.

            Scheuer is a curious beast. An opponent of the Iraq War, he was the head of the CIA's get-bin-Laden unit from 1996 to 1999, and he should know what he is talking about. But he is very pro-rendition and was critical of the choice of Panetta on US networks today, mostly because he is an outsider. His claim that Clinton/Panetta started/knew about the outsourcing of torture was repeated by William Kristol and others.

            http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/alex_spillius/blog/20...

            (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 4) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
            Reply

            6 Replies

            loading loading ...
            • 100%
              mesodude7 months, 4 weeks ago

              This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

              You're speculating. Answer the question, dammit. If you're so confident that Republicans have done no wrong, why are you trying to spread your fear and "implicate" Democrats? Thanks.

              (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 7) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
              Reply

              2 Replies

              loading loading ...
              • 0%
                nostalgia7 months, 4 weeks ago

                This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

                Gee Meso
                I'll consider answering your question when YOU start answering questions

                Next time you answer a question directly let me know in case I miss it

                (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
                Reply

                1 Reply

                loading loading ...
                • Neutral
                  mesodude7 months, 3 weeks ago

                  This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

                  Just as I suspected. You're FOS and lies. Period.

                  (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 9) (recursion depth : 7) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
                  Reply
                  loading loading ...
              • 100%
                willottica7 months, 4 weeks ago

                This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

                How much advice do you think attorneys at the Justice Dept will be willing to give Obama if they think the next administration may go on a witch hunt and prosecute them for the advice?

                Let's see, if he's looking for advice on how to break the law without it looking like he's breaking the law, or if he's looking for advice on how to bend the law as far as he can before it breaks, then I hope that they won't give him any advice.

                A president shouldn't decide that he doesn't like a law and thus seek ways around it. If he doesn't like the law, he should challenge it outright.

                (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 7) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
                Reply

                2 Replies

                loading loading ...
                • 0%
                  nostalgia7 months, 4 weeks ago

                  This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

                  Exactly what "law" was broken? And please cite it specifically with a link

                  (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
                  Reply

                  1 Reply

                  loading loading ...
                  • 100%
                    willottica7 months, 4 weeks ago

                    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

                    Did I say a law was broken? My comment was purely hypothetical. Do you agree with it?

                    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 9) (recursion depth : 7) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
                    Reply
                    loading loading ...

        Post Reply

        You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.

        People Who Liked This Comment (7)

        People Who Didn't Like This Comment (2)