GOP Ignites Firestorm By Revealing Classified Info From Closed-Door Intel Briefings

The Hill:

Republicans ignited a firestorm of controversy on Thursday by revealing some of what they had been told at a closed-door Intelligence Committee hearing on the interrogation of terrorism suspects.

Read the whole story: The Hill

Comments

[neesy08]

I heard about this last nigt while watching KO's show (Shuster hosted it). tterly amazing! It's all politics

[OptimusMaximus]

Now if ever we had a case of the pot calling the kettle black, this is it.

The Bushies were simply doing their job to try and protect the American citizens, a prime directive of the constitution.

Pelosi first broke the secrecy of the briefing contents. Obama selectively declassified minutes of those meetings, and when Cheney asked to have the parts declassified to prove the waterboarding provided information that prevented additional attacks, Obama refused.

So, now that the repubs, in self defense, "leak" additional info from those meetings, you guys start screaming they are "playing politics" with national security.

If it wasn't so typical of your selective double standards, it would be funny.

[LinkSync]

If the entire Congress knew of and thus is complicit in War Crimes then the entire Congress should go to jail.
This is not a partisan issue!
It does perhaps explain the reluctance by the entire Government to any investigation though.
The good old boy, friends and nieghbors, pigs at the trough attitudes taken by one and all suggest rather strongly that a publicly silent conspiracy to hide guilt is afoot.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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,,,

Hang 'em!

[Irishman40]

Just one problem with your harangue- No war crimes have been committed

[LinkSync]

Once again inuendo and allusions are supposed to suffice to "prove" anything the republicans want to have proved.

Did they see actual evidence of success or where they lied to as to that success?
Let's SEE for our selves and remind them that expedience in now way ameliorates war crimes.

My bet is they got lied to like everyone else by the Bush/Cheney machine.
Then they became complicit in the war crimes as intended by that Machine.

[OptimusMaximus]

The dems have demagogued themselves into a deep hole on this issue, but can't seem to put down the shovel.

The Bush admin presented legal arguments in intelligence briefings supporting their reasoning that water boarding was NOT torture. You may disagree, but the arguments were made, the AG agreed, and their plans to use water boarding were explained in those briefings. Many dems were present, including Pelosi or her aide, depending on whose story you believe. Pelosi and the other dems did NOTHING substantial to stop these plans. They had the power to attempt to withdraw funding if they so chose to do so. Why? Because that position wouldn't have been politically popular so soon after 9/11.

To now obtain a legal ruling that water boarding is torture ex-post facto may indeed be possible, but if accomplished, it leaves Pelosi and other dems in the postion of accessories to the crime.

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of losers.

[Marcospinelli]

Yours is significant revisionist history.

If it was as you tell it, I can understand your feeling as you do.

But the facts that are known, in addition to settled law about waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques" (TORTURE, that's what it all was, and was declared such in the law), don't match your revisionism.

[OptimusMaximus]

If you are correct, why don't you cite the ruling and/or law that declared waterboarding torture? You can't, because there is none.

The summary in my previous post above is correct, and that is why you will not see the dems press charges against any members of the former administration until they successfully obtain an ex-post facto ruling.

And I predict they will not seek an ex-post facto ruling because so many dems would then be in legal jeopardy as I also stated previously.

Besides, why should they? They've already got thousands of drones/lemmings like you who believe in your alternative version of history, and are so confident the repubs are responsible for non-prosecution of non-existent crimes, they are content to sit back and occasionally cry "Yes!" Yes!" to keep you frothing at the mouth.

The dems now control both houses of congress and the presidency. If you are correct, why no prosecutions? Why no special prosecutor? Why no congressional hearings at least? Because the summary in my previous post is correct.

Wake up and smell the coffee....

[Marcospinelli]

The torture focused on getting any or all of the detainees to confess to FALSE information. To there being links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

That's what keeps getting obscured. The SERE program, reverse-engineered by two psychologists, to elicit FALSE information. How do you torture people NOT to tell you the truth, but to tell you a LIE, a specific lie, and make it believable?

That's the story here.

[Marcospinelli]

Congress can hold hearings and make referrals to the Attorney General for prosecution, which Obama has said he won't honor.

AG Holder can investigate and prosecute on his own, or appoint a special prosecutor.

Obama can appoint a special prosecutor.

Congress can pass (reinstate) the special counsel law that lapsed at the end of Bill Clinton's administration.

Not only is this a matter of justice and law enforcement (and just plain old doing your d@mned job, Obama and Holder), this is a matter of leadership.

What do you think are the chances of a special counsel law getting through both houses of Congress? Talk about your political footballs.

Which is the most expedient route to justice?

If, as Obama's excusers suggest, enforcing the law and fulfilling his Constitutional duty (Obama has no choice but to prosecute or become guilty himself of a criminal action, obstruction of justice -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tG9Nj0OizCA) takes his attention away from the very important other issues we are dealing with, then why isn't he appointing a special prosecutor to deal with it. If he isn't protecting Bush and Cheney and preventing investigations into the last 8 years?

[wgsalter]

The argument that a prosecutor (the AG) or the executive (Pres Obama) MUST prosecute is they are themselves guilty of obstruction of justice is simply false as a matter of law. There is NOTHING in either federal statute nor the Constitution that remotely supports that position. And please note, that even if you THINK they would be guilty of obstruction of justice, no one is guilty until they have been charged, indicted, tried and FOUND guilty by a jury of their peers. Now who, pray tell, is going to do THAT? So your statement is legally, logically and factually without support. Other than that, though, it's a really strong argument...

[Marcospinelli]

Very cute, but no. You've got it wrong.

Obama took an oath to enforce & uphold the Constitution & our laws.

Obama has said that waterboarding is torture, & torture violates at least four treaties & is considered a war crime. Those other methods were considered torture worldwide, too, before BushCo came to power. Bush&Cheney (& Rice, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, et al) have admitted to signing off on waterboarding. Rice confessed to conspiracy to commit war crimes on television, for all the world to see and hear: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJmdHQaHYvM

Calling waterboarding & other torture "EIT (Enhanced Interrogation Techniques)" doesn't make it "not torture". Claiming that it was on "just 3 people", "the worst of the worst", doesn't mitigate the fact that it's a crime. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3w65Q2XFGA

[JeanPaulSatire]

Essentially, the Rethugs are seeking some sort of political jury nullification where the jury is the American electorate. That is, they are admitting having committed the crime(s) but want us to say "well, even though what you did was illegal, the sons-of-bachelors deserved it AND torturing them actually did some good."

If they fail to prove the "did some good" part, all they are left with is that those tortured were bad sons-of-bachelors. That's an unsupportable, slippery slope justification: it would allow such behavior to be used on *everyone* against whom our military and/or intelligence agencies act.

After all, we use our military and intelligence agencies ONLY against the bad guys, right?

[Marcospinelli]

Yes, and there's more to it.

Waterboarding, and waterboarding "only 3" wasn't the only torture committed on detainees.

Detainees were murdered, raped, and tortured in other ways, aside from waterboarding.

History shows us that unless offenders are stopped, held to account, each subsequent generation expands on the offenses. In my lifetime, I've seen a complacency among my fellow Americans that is explained with a shrug of the shoulders and excuses like, "The other side does it, too."

That reasoning that only makes sense to psychiatrists, for diagnostic purposes.

That kind of reasoning leads to thinking that because OJ Simpson got away with killing his wife and Ron Goldman, then nobody should be tried for murder.

Or because Nixon got pardoned before he could be charged for his crimes, no presidents should even be charged when they commit crimes. We're already past the point of holding presidents to account for crimes by impeaching them. Because when Republicans improperly used the instrument of impeachment as an appropriate political tool to box in a president of another party, Democrats responded by taking the use impeachment off the table for anything, for all time. Honestly, if impeachment wasn't used for Bush's and Cheney's crimes (lying a country into a war of choice?), what could it possibly ever be used for again?

[wgsalter]

While I don't agree with you at all, let's assume for the sake of taking your fact base: that Bush and Cheney "[lied] a country into a war of choice." Lying is not a crime unless under oath. War is not a crime if Congress authorizes it, or we're invaded, or there's an insurrection. And, of course, Congress authorized it. So where is the "high crime or misdemeanor"?

[wgsalter]

If you don't think that the American electorate has the power to execute some sort of "political jury nullification" (nicely turned phrase by the way - I hope to use it without giving you credit), then you have missed what democracy is all about. Please note Japanese concentration camps, the atomic bomb dropped on cities, the Dresden fire bombing, etc. Political jury nullification (a phrase I just came up with) of these "crimes" is EXACTLY what goes on. Obama, obviously more politically acute than your average bear, understands this without being told.
SO. If the administration holds show trials of Bush administration officials, not only will our intelligence officials walk and our security for a generation be undermined (as it was after the disasterous Church hearings), THE PUBLIC WONT LIKE IT. And they will vent their anger not on "the guys who kept us safe", but on OBAMA and the Democratic CONGRESS. It's lose/lose. And in criminal prosecutions, there's a very strong likelihood that anyone indicted would be acquitted, relying as they were on DOJ opinions supporting their actions. That makes it lose/lose/lose. And don't kid yourself, this kind of calculus is what separates people who attain power from those of us who only stand and blog (pace John Milton).

[Marcospinelli]

Jury nullification is illegal. Just so anyone reading this thread not walk away with the mistaken idea that it's an accepted, everyday practice, covered within the democracy. It's not. It's a rogue act of lawlessness.

How do you suggest that we gauge this "political jury nullification"?

How do you know that "THE PUBLIC WON'T LIKE IT"?

Do we just take your word for it? That doesn't work for me, especially when I read your take on the post-Watergate years, "disasterous Church hearings, "security for a generation will be undermined", etc.

Yours is a twisted perspective, as is true for conservatives in general. They (and you) take no responsibility for anything. Conservatives have controlled US foreign policy for more than fifty years, and they've made a total hash of it. Our intelligence agencies were supposed to gather intelligence and not knock over democratically elected governments of sovereign nations around the world. Our government and all of its agencies, from the DoD to the Dept of Agriculture and EPA, are supposed to be working for We The People, and not further the interests of corporations.

The reason for Congress's low poll numbers is because they did NOT impeach Bush&Cheney, and prevent BushCo's radical right legislation from passage these last years.

Liberals knew that BushCo was lying about everything, but in particular the war in Iraq. So when you talk about what the public won't like, if it's true? THEY'LL COME AROUND.

[KillBillV2]

Revealing classified information is i llegal!

[Marcospinelli]

Not when Republicans do it.

If Obama won't investigate, prosecute and appoint a special prosecutor to deal with the Bush administration's crimes, why should anybody concern themselves with following the law?

If Obama won't do it because Democrats are also guilty, law and order has broken down. Why would anybody live within the law when the first rule of this country ("equal justice under the law") isn't so?

That's what's happening. And it was predictable. Heck, I and many others predicted this would be the outcome of not dealing with Iran-Contra, and deregulation and privatization of government by Republicans (to which Democrats signed on because voters were swept up by the rhetoric of a Hollywood B-actor playing president.

The chickens have come home to roost.

[RRG64]

What does it matter if Obama prosecutes or not as long as they are prosecuted?

Cheney is going to end up just like Pinochet.

ESSENCE.COM: Regarding interrogation techniques used under the Bush administration, such as waterboarding, what is the likelihood that the Justice Department will investigate officials who authorized these techniques?
HOLDER: The President has said, and I agree, that we don't want to investigate people who operated with the approval of the Justice Department and who acted consistent with the authorization that was given to them by the Justice Department. But beyond that it's a question of where the facts, where the law, takes us. No one is above the law, and it really is a question of what happens as time passes and as we become more familiar with the circumstances under which some of these decisions were made.

ESSENCE.COM: So in the event that the facts lead to the conclusion that the law was violated, then action would be taken?
HOLDER: If we were to find that there were in fact violations of the law, and that you've had cases that were worthy of investigation and potential prosecution, we would follow the law.

http://www.essence.com/news_entertainment/news/articles/attorney_general_holder_interview?xid=042909-CNN-ericholder&Page=2

[kevenseven]

If torture was so darned effective, why stop torturing?

Has the threat gone away?

[Irishman40]

Right there with you kevensen. Although folks should stop calling it torture. It wasnt torture.

[Marcospinelli]

Why do you believe that it wasn't torture?

What do you base that belief on?

[kevenseven]

It is equally criminal to torture a terrorist as it is to torture a nun.

Torture is wrong. End of discussion.

I thought it was the Rethugs that were all about moral absolutes?

[wgsalter]

So you're admitting nuns aren't terrorists...

[Irishman40]

Keven

You are familiar with the concept of choosing the lesser of 2 evils arent you? WHich is worse? Making an terrorist uncomfortable for a few minutes in order to save lives or leaving the terrorist in peace and consequently allowing innocent people to die? Which is the greater evil? And if you had to choose between the two, which do you choose? Thats the choice that the bush administration was facing in the immediate aftermath of 911

[Budokan]

Maybe it's high time we start waterboarding RepubliKans and other conservative outlets that spew hate and propaganda in order to bring down our country. The seething hatred they have for America cannot be tolerated any longer. They must be dealt with before they out any more CIA NOCs or disseminate secret material to foreign governments. They are an internal enemy who have claimed they "want America to fail." This is unacceptable and I believe they must be treated like the rogue elements they are, with alacrity and cold dispassion.

Nothing else will do.

[drrocketanski]

We definitely need a "final solution" for those nasty Republicans. Heil Budokan!

[Irishman40]

No, we dont want America to fail. We just want Obama to fail. Because we believe his policies will be bad for the country.

[kevenseven]

"Based on what I heard and the documents I have seen, I came away with a very clear impression that we did gather information that did disrupt terr orist plots," Kline said.

IMPRESSION???????????????????????????

He got the "impression"???????????????????

What the he ll? We are supposed to care what "impression" this barbarian took away from a vague and self-serving briefing?

OBVIOUSLY no one said expressly that torture resulted in actionable intelligence that directly prevented any SORT of attack.

Some jerkface gets an "impression" and we are supposed to abandon the rule of law?

I don't think so.

Indictments Now!

[wgsalter]

So let me get this straight. He walks out of the meeting, and says nothing of who briefed the group, or what in particular was discussed, or anything about sources and methods, but makes instead a broad statement about matters already very heavily in the public consciousness and all over the news, and THAT'S leaking classifed information??? I don't THINK so...

[kevenseven]

“Based on what I heard and the documents I have seen, I came away with a very clear impression that we did gather information that did disrupt terrorist plots,” Kline said.

IMPRESSION???????????????????????????

He got the "impression"???????????????????

What the he ll? We are supposed to care what "impression" this barbarian took away from a vague and self-serving briefing?

OBVIOUSLY no one said expressly that torture resulted in actionable intelligence that directly prevented any SORT of attack.

Some reactionaryasshole gets an "impression" and we are supposed to abandon the rule of law?

I don't think so.

Indictments Now!

[gladys46]

Exactly ... consider a repubs "impressions" ... WOW !!! Their trickle down stratagem made a great impression ... huh ... or was that dam n near a GREAT DEPRESSION !!

[Marcospinelli]

If torture is so wonderfully effective, why limit using it on foreign detainees?

Why don't cops do it during routine traffic stops?

[gladys46]

Because they want the ticket or traffic violator to pay the fines ... not be jailed themselves for excessive force ... the violator will not be jailed if the po po tortures them ... the judge by law would have to toss out the charges !!!

But you know that !! ; )

[OneAngryDwarf]

So why aren't they using waterboarding on Roeder? He is obviously guilty of something, so why not move the process along and see if we can find some other t.e.r.r.o.r.i.s.t. that might be getting ready to strike as we speak?

[doug108]

I know your question is rhetorical, but there are Supreme Court cases that have dealt with abuse of arrestees. There's one I recall specifically in which a black guy was accused of raping a white girl. The cops beat him with a belt (the end with the buckle), after which he confessed to the crime. The SC threw out the conviction, because of the coercive means of the "questioning." This was in the 20s or 30s.

These people defending torture do I realize, I suppose, that if the U.S. permits torture, then anyone else can use it, too. I guess they do. Maybe they don't. I guess torture is just for the good guys to use, and we decide who the good guys are.

[gladys46]

Under the Bush, Inc. admin we truly became a lawless nation and the world knew it !

[LooktotheLeft]

2001-2008 "Age of Fear". If I've said it once I've said it a hundred times: the real damage of 9-1-1 has happened everyday since and will continue to happen until we, collectively, can find a way to "untraumatize" ourselves and return to some sense of rationality and proportionality. People, including me, laugh at such states as Kentucky, 'Bama, TN, et al., and much of the time, rightfully so. But keep in mind, many of the people we, stereotypically, are laughing at don't vote (or even know how). So it is, ostensibly, the "sophisticated" residents of such states that are voting and electing such people as Sarah Palin into higher office without the least bit of proper scrutiny. Can anyone imagine in a million years Sarah Palin winning the Govern ship of Alaska, or any other state, pre-9-1-1? We are, quite simply, the most vulnerable and susceptible industrialized nation on Earth to be irreparably traumatized. When are we going to stop letting an act of h*orror trump our natural instincts of common sense and good judgment? And it's not gonna be easy to just "dump" fear like that. It is, afterall, become one of our greatest revenue generators. We export entertainment, cigarettes, debt, and fear. Why, fear is practically a comidity on Wall St. To quote Pogo again: "We Have Met The Enemy and He Is Us"

[LooktotheLeft]

"commodity"