President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[treetopovskaya]

Yeah, I don't see it. Bush signed a memo stating military needs to abide by Geneva rules.... How is that blaming soldiers?

Speaking of which, a newly declassified Senate Armed Services report released today shows Bush blamed torture on the soldiers.
How does that make you feel?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/21/ ... es.report/

this is sickening

[The_Noble_Cause]

ok... he made public classified (top secret) info. not a very smart thing to do. especially since we're at war. he puts our country & troops at risk.

Great talking point.
I challenge you to explain it.
Aside from a possible chilling effect at the CIA, these memos only confirm what was already in the public domain.

[treetopovskaya]

So you don't think the enemy can use this information, which describes the techniques, their own gain?

Sometimes you fools have to put aside your hatred for Bush and look at reality. Of course you are going to say the same about me, but I ain't no Bush supporter.

ok... he made public classified (top secret) info. not a very smart thing to do. especially since we're at war. he puts our country & troops at risk.

Great talking point.
I challenge you to explain it.
Aside from a possible chilling effect at the CIA, these memos only confirm what was already in the public domain.

[The_Noble_Cause]

So you don't think the enemy can use this information, which describes the techniques, their own gain?

No, I don't.
Care to explain how?
As others have stated, the terrorists are going to do whatever they well please regardless.

Sometimes you fools have to put aside your hatred for Bush and look at reality. Of course you are going to say the same about me, but I ain't no Bush supporter.

Of course not.
You're only here making asinine comparisons between Roe v. Wade and a war crime because you want Obama to succeed.

[treetopovskaya]

my argument was how this country cares more about the criminals rights & feelings... how they are treated than they do about the victim. i used abortion as an example. if you can be okay with abortion (the killing of an innocent life) why would you worry about what happens to a terrorist. i just don't get it. if using forceful means saves lives... do it. there isn't a person alive that wouldn't do what it took to save someone they love. if you then turn around & say you are against it when it's someone else's loved one you are SELFISH!! some people have a problem with being intellectually honest.

what happens when obama captures someone and they have information which could save lives. is he going to file a lawsuit against the terrorist and take him to court? perhaps talking is not enough with some people. if another attack comes, what's the political price? what's the price we will pay in innocent lives?

if bush had the 20th terrorist in custody and it was found out that he had information about 9/11 but couldn't get the information from him because "harsh interrogation techniques" were illegal, what's the price he would have paid? impeachment would be the least of his worries, and it will be the least of obama's worries if anything should ever happen.

i wish the government didn't have to resort to things like torture, but i wish people didn't have to die because some extremist believe america is the cause of all the world's woes.

So you don't think the enemy can use this information, which describes the techniques, their own gain?

No, I don't.
Care to explain how?
As others have stated, the terrorists are going to do whatever they well please regardless.

Sometimes you fools have to put aside your hatred for Bush and look at reality. Of course you are going to say the same about me, but I ain't no Bush supporter.

Of course not.
You're only here making asinine comparisons between Roe v. Wade and a war crime because you want Obama to succeed.

[The_Noble_Cause]

my argument was how this country cares more about the criminals rights & feelings... how they are treated than they do about the victim. i used abortion as an example. if you can be okay with abortion (the killing of an innocent life) why would you worry about what happens to a terrorist. i just don't get it.

The calculus is very simple.
Abortion is legal.
Torture is not.

what happens when obama captures someone and they have information which could save lives. is he going to file a lawsuit against the terrorist and take him to court? perhaps talking is not enough with some people. if another attack comes, what's the political price? what's the price we will pay in innocent lives?

Abide by the laws or change them.
If Bush Co. had looked into waterboarding’s sordid past before using it, maybe they would’ve been less eager to use it.
But, as the NYTimes reported today, they didn’t even do that.

if bush had the 20th terrorist in custody and it was found out that he had information about 9/11 but could get the information from him because "harsh interrogation techniques" were illegal, what's the price he would have paid? impeachment would be the least of his worries, and it will be the least of obama's worries if anything should ever happen.

There’s not one documented case of a real life 24 ticking time bomb scenario.
And it’s worth noting, the NSA knew about the hijackers pre-911.
There was just a failure to share the info.
So our intelligence agencies worked without reverting to Pol Pot tactics.

i wish the government didn't have to resort to things like torture, but i wish people didn't have to die because some extremist believe america is the cause of all the world's woes.

Does your list of America-hating extremists include anti-torture advocate, John McCain?
Y'know, that old guy you voted for.

[Eric]

I’m not going to get into the fact that France, Germany, Russia (and even our own CIA) expressed doubts about the intelligence

Some of their doubts were more about them losing oil money than anything else though. At the time, France for example, was not going to be a reliable ally no matter what because of their relationship with Saddam.

[The_Noble_Cause]

FOX News' Judge Napolitano recaps the released torture memos and weighs in.

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/ ... ure_memos/

[Rockindeano]

if bush had the 20th terrorist in custody and it was found out that he had information about 9/11 but couldn't get the information from him because "harsh interrogation techniques" were illegal, what's the price he would have paid? impeachment would be the least of his worries, and it will be the least of obama's worries if anything should ever happen.

LOL, Bush didn't have a fucking clue what was happening let alone know there were 20 terrorists/hijackers. Impeachment the least of his worries? That fucker ought to be rung up on charges too many to count. Bush was reading(yeah right), to a 3rd grade class in Florida when the first plane hit the Trade Center. Andy Card came in, whispered in his ear and the stupid bastard kept at it for 7 minutes. 7 fucking minutes! Maybe he was getting close to finishing his first ever book.

But you claim Obama is the Naive, arrogant and ignorant. I am worried about you Wendy.

Also, declassifying information that the previous corrupt administration obviously wanted hidden, is awesome, and takes stones by Obama. Transparency. I know you Cons have a hard time with transparency, being honest with the American people is tough to do ain't it?

[Lula]

this is all very interesting to say the least. i find it appalling that the geneva convention seems to have been completely overlooked, disregarded, trampled on, etc... in the memos. the tactics of our prior admin have left the moral image of our country destroyed. cheney is backpeddling big time. i heard two clips this morning on the news regarding a meeting between an iraq official and an al qaeda leader, that cheney first said was "confirmed" and when asked about it recently he said he never said "confirmed" he lied! i hope the truth is able to prevail.

[Rockindeano]

this is all very interesting to say the least. i find it appalling that the geneva convention seems to have been completely overlooked, disregarded, trampled on, etc... in the memos. the tactics of our prior admin have left the moral image of our country destroyed. cheney is backpeddling big time. i heard two clips this morning on the news regarding a meeting between an iraq official and an al qaeda leader, that cheney first said was "confirmed" and when asked about it recently he said he never said "confirmed" he lied! i hope the truth is able to prevail.

Riveting post Lula. You just now discovered that Dick Cheney is the fucking Devil? Possibly the worst ever person to serve in government, let alone live. I would rather hang out with OJ, Manson and the Unabomber than Dick. I hope he has a nice extended stay in Hell.

There was a reason Cheney had a 13% approval rating. I just have to know who those dumbfucks are.

[Rip Rokken]

The Geneva Convention doesn't protect terrorists (nor do they try in any way to abide by it). Here is a nice little article on the topic:

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/174117.php

[S2M]

this is all very interesting to say the least. i find it appalling that the geneva convention seems to have been completely overlooked, disregarded, trampled on, etc... in the memos. the tactics of our prior admin have left the moral image of our country destroyed. cheney is backpeddling big time. i heard two clips this morning on the news regarding a meeting between an iraq official and an al qaeda leader, that cheney first said was "confirmed" and when asked about it recently he said he never said "confirmed" he lied! i hope the truth is able to prevail.

Riveting post Lula. You just now discovered that Dick Cheney is the fucking Devil? Possibly the worst ever person to serve in government, let alone live. I would rather hang out with OJ, Manson and the Unabomber than Dick. I hope he has a nice extended stay in Hell.

There was a reason Cheney had a 13% approval rating. I just have to know who those dumbfucks are.

People who vote strict party lines. And people who were making money based on Cheney's decisions.

[The_Noble_Cause]

The Geneva Convention doesn't protect terrorists (nor do they try in any way to abide by it). Here is a nice little article on the topic:

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/174117.php

Prior to 2008, I'd agree with you, but the Supreme Court ruled that GITMO detainees should be treated as POWS and as such, are entitled to habeas corpus. Geneva is most likely now in play, in addition to existing anti-torture rules already on the books.

[Lula]

taken from the foxblog regarding the memos. this is what i refer to when i speak of the blatant disregard of the law that governs the u.s. enemy combatant, terrorist, rebel, freedom fighter, innocent victim- torture is illegal.

"The memos also fail to account for the Geneva Conventions, which the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled govern American treatment of all foreign detainees, lawful or unlawful. The third of those conventions PROHIBITS TOUCHING the detainee in any way, other than for the purpose of moving him from place to place, if he refuses to go voluntarily and when told to do so."

[Rip Rokken]

The Geneva Convention doesn't protect terrorists (nor do they try in any way to abide by it). Here is a nice little article on the topic:

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/174117.php

Prior to 2008, I'd agree with you, but the Supreme Court ruled that GITMO detainees should be treated as POWS and as such, are entitled to habeas corpus. Geneva is most likely now in play, in addition to existing anti-torture rules already on the books.

Terrorists should be treated with rigormus corpus in my opinion.

Example here:
http://estrip.org/elmwood/users/joshua/ ... st0915.jpg

[Rockindeano]

this is all very interesting to say the least. i find it appalling that the geneva convention seems to have been completely overlooked, disregarded, trampled on, etc... in the memos. the tactics of our prior admin have left the moral image of our country destroyed. cheney is backpeddling big time. i heard two clips this morning on the news regarding a meeting between an iraq official and an al qaeda leader, that cheney first said was "confirmed" and when asked about it recently he said he never said "confirmed" he lied! i hope the truth is able to prevail.

Riveting post Lula. You just now discovered that Dick Cheney is the fucking Devil? Possibly the worst ever person to serve in government, let alone live. I would rather hang out with OJ, Manson and the Unabomber than Dick. I hope he has a nice extended stay in Hell.

There was a reason Cheney had a 13% approval rating. I just have to know who those dumbfucks are.

People who vote strict party lines. And people who were making money based on Cheney's decisions.

So Halliburton's workforce plus the 5 nuts on this Board account for 13% of the voting public?

[S2M]

this is all very interesting to say the least. i find it appalling that the geneva convention seems to have been completely overlooked, disregarded, trampled on, etc... in the memos. the tactics of our prior admin have left the moral image of our country destroyed. cheney is backpeddling big time. i heard two clips this morning on the news regarding a meeting between an iraq official and an al qaeda leader, that cheney first said was "confirmed" and when asked about it recently he said he never said "confirmed" he lied! i hope the truth is able to prevail.

Riveting post Lula. You just now discovered that Dick Cheney is the fucking Devil? Possibly the worst ever person to serve in government, let alone live. I would rather hang out with OJ, Manson and the Unabomber than Dick. I hope he has a nice extended stay in Hell.

There was a reason Cheney had a 13% approval rating. I just have to know who those dumbfucks are.

People who vote strict party lines. And people who were making money based on Cheney's decisions.

So Halliburton's workforce plus the 5 nuts on this Board account for 13% of the voting public?

Oh, I forgot.....Bruce and Luongo too.....

[donnaplease]

what happens when obama captures someone and they have information which could save lives. is he going to file a lawsuit against the terrorist and take him to court? perhaps talking is not enough with some people. if another attack comes, what's the political price? what's the price we will pay in innocent lives?

Does anyone else see a double standard here? Didn't BO order the US Navy to send a SEAL team to take out the Somali pirates that were holding an American captive? He could've just paid the price they were asking and then tried to 'talk' to them about their wicked behavior. The US government has assasinated people all over the world in secret missions (or that's what we are led to believe). Why is it ok to do that, but waterboarding is considered so much worse? I just don't understand.

FWIW, I'm glad the SEAL team did what they did to save the captain. I'm glad BO showed some backbone with that. Everyone just needs to lay off the partisan witch hunt now.

[donnaplease]

Everyone just needs to lay off the partisan witch hunt now.

What the hell's fun about that?

It's pretty bad when the most exciting thread in a music forum is about POTUS...

[Rockindeano]

Why is it ok to do that, but waterboarding is considered so much worse? I just don't understand.

For one donna, waterboarding is done to prisoners, many of whom aren't found guilty of anything. Secondly, waterboarding is a lot worse than being shot. It's fucking torture. Humans should not do that to one another, period, regardless of what colors the flag involved.

Christ almighty, stop trying to "dumb down" the argument at hand. You all know damned well this (torture), is a complex issue, and cannot be solved with simplistic sayings.

[treetopovskaya]

dean, lula, tnc you never answered this question...

if someone you loved was in harms way... would you do anything to get them back safely? even if it meant torturing someone?

if you say you would not you are LYING.

[Rockindeano]

dean, lula, tnc you never answered this question...

if someone you loved was in harms way... would you do anything to get them back safely? even if it meant torturing someone?

if you say you would not you are LYING.

Go turn on channel 275, your biy Scotty N is on now.

As for your question, sure I would. However, there is absolutely zero likeness to what your asking and prisoners of war.

I wonder how come none of you fucking Cons, and I emphasize the word "fucking" because you all are so fucking dense and narrow minded, never bring up the fact Senator McCain was tortured? He, of republican ilk, is steadfast against the use of torture. I guess a POW, and war hero, and I say that with all the respect possible, has zero credence on this argument because well, he lost the election and has no more political clout.

[Rockindeano]

Nice-

From the Political party that values life. (Stop laughing now TNC).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090424/ap_ ... death_toll


AP IMPACT: Secret tally has 87,215 Iraqis dead


BAGHDAD – Iraq's government has recorded 87,215 of its citizens killed since 2005 in violence ranging from catastrophic bombings to execution-style slayings, according to government statistics obtained by The Associated Press that break open one of the most closely guarded secrets of the war.

Combined with tallies based on hospital sources and media reports since the beginning of the war and an in-depth review of available evidence by The Associated Press, the figures show that more than 110,600 Iraqis have died in violence since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

The number is a minimum count of violent deaths. The official who provided the data to the AP, on condition of anonymity because of its sensitivity, estimated the actual number of deaths at 10 to 20 percent higher because of thousands who are still missing and civilians who were buried in the chaos of war without official records.

The Health Ministry has tallied death certificates since 2005, and late that year the United Nations began using them — along with hospital and morgue figures — to publicly release casualty counts. But by early 2007, when sectarian violence was putting political pressure on the U.S. and Iraqi governments, the Iraqi numbers disappeared. The United Nations "repeatedly asked for that cooperation" to resume but never received a response, U.N. associate spokesman Farhan Haq said Thursday.

The data obtained by the AP measure only violent deaths — people killed in attacks such as the shootings, bombings, mortar attacks and beheadings that have ravaged Iraq. It excluded indirect factors such as damage to infrastructure, health care and stress that caused thousands more to die.

Authoritative statistics for 2003 and 2004 do not exist. But Iraq Body Count, a private, British-based group, has tallied civilian deaths from media reports and other sources since the war's start. The AP reviewed the Iraq Body Count analysis and confirmed its conclusions by sifting the data and consulting experts. The AP also interviewed experts involved with previous studies, prominent Iraq analysts and provincial and medical officials to determine that the new tally was credible.

The AP also added its own tabulation of deaths since Feb. 28, the last date in the Health Ministry count.

The three figures add up to more than 110,600 Iraqis who have died in the war.

That total generally coincides with the trends reported by reputable surveys, which have been compiled either by tallying deaths reported by international journalists, or by surveying samplings of Iraqi households and extrapolating the numbers.

Iraq Body Count's estimate of deaths since the start of the war, excluding police and soldiers, is a range — between 91,466 and 99,861.

The numbers show just how traumatic the war has been for Iraq. In a nation of 29 million people, the deaths represent 0.38 percent of the population. Proportionally, that would be like the United States losing 1.2 million people to violence in the four-year period; about 17,000 people are murdered every year in the U.S.

Security has improved since the worst years, but almost every person in Iraq has been touched by the violence.

"We have lost everything," said Badriya Abbas Jabbar, 54. A 2007 truck bombing targeting a market near her Baghdad home killed three granddaughters, a son and a niece.

North of the capital in the city of Baqouba, a mother shrouded in black calls to her three sons from her doorstep. She calls out as if they were alive, but they were killed in April 2007, when Shiite Muslim militiamen barged into their auto parts store and gunned them down because they were Sunni.

The Health Ministry figures indicate such violence was tremendously deadly. Of the 87,215 deaths, 59,957 came in 2006 and 2007, when sectarian attacks soared and death squads roamed the streets. The period was marked by catastrophic bombings and execution-style killings.

Quantifying the loss has always been difficult. Records were not always compiled centrally, and the brutal insurgency sharply limited on-the-scene reporting. The U.S. military never shared its data.

The Health Ministry was always at the forefront of counting deaths. Under Saddam Hussein, it compiled casualty figures even as U.S. troops closed in on Baghdad, though it later abandoned that effort. It has started up again in fits, and finally began reliable record-keeping at the start of 2005.

Those data were provided to the AP in the form of a two-page computer printout listing yearly totals for death certificates issued for violent deaths by hospitals and morgues between Jan. 1, 2005, and Feb. 28, 2009.

The ministry does not have figures for the first two years of the war because it was devastated in the aftermath of the invasion, the official said.

Experts said the count constitutes an important baseline, albeit an incomplete one. Richard Brennan, who has done mortality research in Congo and Kosovo, said it is likely a "gross underestimate" because many deaths go unrecorded in war zones.

The Iraqi Body Count numbers are likely even more incomplete, given that many killings occurred in incidents journalists were unaware of or in inaccessible areas.

Read more by clicking link above....

[Lula]

lol, tree. you're asking a question, but have already determined our answer.

if someone i loved was being held and i knew where they were i would do everything in my power to save them. i would not torture another human being, i'd much rather follow the law.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Just to keep the record straight....see the date.

Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002

In Meetings, Spy Panels' Chiefs Did Not Protest, Officials Say

By Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, December 9, 2007; A01



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, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.

Congressional leaders from both parties would later seize on waterboarding as a symbol of the worst excesses of the Bush administration's counterterrorism effort. The CIA last week admitted that videotape of an interrogation of one of the waterboarded detainees was destroyed in 2005 against the advice of Justice Department and White House officials, provoking allegations that its actions were illegal and the destruction was a coverup.

Yet long before "waterboarding" entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."

Congressional officials say the groups' ability to challenge the practices was hampered by strict rules of secrecy that prohibited them from being able to take notes or consult legal experts or members of their own staffs. And while various officials have described the briefings as detailed and graphic, it is unclear precisely what members were told about waterboarding and how it is conducted. Several officials familiar with the briefings also recalled that the meetings were marked by an atmosphere of deep concern about the possibility of an imminent terrorist attack.

"In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic," said one U.S. official present during the early briefings. "But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.' "

Only after information about the practice began to leak in news accounts in 2005 -- by which time the CIA had already abandoned waterboarding -- did doubts about its legality among individual lawmakers evolve into more widespread dissent. The opposition reached a boiling point this past October, when Democratic lawmakers condemned the practice during Michael B. Mukasey's confirmation hearings for attorney general.

GOP lawmakers and Bush administration officials have previously said members of Congress were well informed and were supportive of the CIA's use of harsh interrogation techniques. But the details of who in Congress knew what, and when, about waterboarding -- a form of simulated drowning that is the most extreme and widely condemned interrogation technique -- have not previously been disclosed.

U.S. law requires the CIA to inform Congress of covert activities and allows the briefings to be limited in certain highly sensitive cases to a "Gang of Eight," including the four top congressional leaders of both parties as well as the four senior intelligence committee members. In this case, most briefings about detainee programs were limited to the "Gang of Four," the top Republican and Democrat on the two committees. A few staff members were permitted to attend some of the briefings.

That decision reflected the White House's decision that the "enhanced interrogation" program would be treated as one of the nation's top secrets for fear of warning al-Qaeda members about what they might expect, said U.S. officials familiar with the decision. Critics have since said the administration's motivation was at least partly to hide from view an embarrassing practice that the CIA considered vital but outsiders would almost certainly condemn as abhorrent.

Information about the use of waterboarding nonetheless began to seep out after a furious internal debate among military lawyers and policymakers over its legality and morality. Once it became public, other members of Congress -- beyond the four that interacted regularly with the CIA on its most sensitive activities -- insisted on being briefed on it, and the circle of those in the know widened.

In September 2006, the CIA for the first time briefed all members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, producing some heated exchanges with CIA officials, including Director Michael V. Hayden. The CIA director said during a television interview two months ago that he had informed congressional overseers of "all aspects of the detention and interrogation program." He said the "rich dialogue" with Congress led him to propose a new interrogation program that President Bush formally announced over the summer

"I can't describe that program to you," Hayden said. "But I would suggest to you that it would be wrong to assume that the program of the past is necessarily the program moving forward into the future."

Waterboarding Used on at Least 3

Waterboarding as an interrogation technique has its roots in some of history's worst totalitarian nations, from Nazi Germany and the Spanish Inquisition to North Korea and Iraq. In the United States, the technique was first used five decades ago as a training tool to give U.S. troops a realistic sense of what they could expect if captured by the Soviet Union or the armies of Southeast Asia. The U.S. military has officially regarded the tactic as torture since the Spanish-American War.

In general, the technique involves strapping a prisoner to a board or other flat surface, and then raising his feet above the level of his head. A cloth is then placed over the subject's mouth and nose, and water is poured over his face to make the prisoner believe he is drowning.

U.S. officials knowledgeable about the CIA's use of the technique say it was used on three individuals -- Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; Zayn Abidin Muhammed Hussein Abu Zubaida, a senior al-Qaeda member and Osama bin Laden associate captured in Pakistan in March 2002; and a third detainee who has not been publicly identified.

Abu Zubaida, the first of the "high-value" detainees in CIA custody, was subjected to harsh interrogation methods beginning in spring 2002 after he refused to cooperate with questioners, the officials said. CIA briefers gave the four intelligence committee members limited information about Abu Zubaida's detention in spring 2002, but offered a more detailed account of its interrogation practices in September of that year, said officials with direct knowledge of the briefings.

The CIA provided another briefing the following month, and then about 28 additional briefings over five years, said three U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge of the meetings. During these sessions, the agency provided information about the techniques it was using as well as the information it collected.

Lawmakers have varied recollections about the topics covered in the briefings.

Graham said he has no memory of ever being told about waterboarding or other harsh tactics. Graham left the Senate intelligence committee in January 2003, and was replaced by Rockefeller. "Personally, I was unaware of it, so I couldn't object," Graham said in an interview. He said he now believes the techniques constituted torture and were illegal.

Pelosi declined to comment directly on her reaction to the classified briefings. But a congressional source familiar with Pelosi's position on the matter said the California lawmaker did recall discussions about enhanced interrogation. The source said Pelosi recalls that techniques described by the CIA were still in the planning stage -- they had been designed and cleared with agency lawyers but not yet put in practice -- and acknowledged that Pelosi did not raise objections at the time.

Harman, who replaced Pelosi as the committee's top Democrat in January 2003, disclosed Friday that she filed a classified letter to the CIA in February of that year as an official protest about the interrogation program. Harman said she had been prevented from publicly discussing the letter or the CIA's program because of strict rules of secrecy.

"When you serve on intelligence committee you sign a second oath -- one of secrecy," she said. "I was briefed, but the information was closely held to just the Gang of Four. I was not free to disclose anything."

Roberts declined to comment on his participation in the briefings. Rockefeller also declined to talk about the briefings, but the West Virginia Democrat's public statements show him leading the push in 2005 for expanded congressional oversight and an investigation of CIA interrogation practices. "I proposed without success, both in committee and on the Senate floor, that the committee undertake an investigation of the CIA's detention and interrogation activities," Rockefeller said in a statement Friday.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a former Vietnam War prisoner who is seeking the GOP presidential nomination, took an early interest in the program even though he was not a member of the intelligence committee, and spoke out against waterboarding in private conversations with White House officials in late 2005 before denouncing it publicly.

In May 2007, four months after Democrats regained control of Congress and well after the CIA had forsworn further waterboarding, four senators submitted written objections to the CIA's use of that tactic and other, still unspecified "enhanced" techniques in two classified letters to Hayden last spring, shortly after receiving a classified hearing on the topic. One letter was sent on May 1 by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.). A similar letter was sent May 10 by a bipartisan group of three senators: Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

In a rare public statement last month that broached the subject of his classified objections, Feingold complained about administration claims of congressional support, saying that it was "not the case" that lawmakers briefed on the CIA's program "have approved it or consented to it."

Staff writers Josh White and Walter Pincus and staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

Nancy Pelosi has denied this.
Considering Bush skirted informing Congress about his illegal wiretaps (telling only a "gang of eight", who later said they were denied the full truth) she could be right.
If not, impeach her.

[The_Noble_Cause]

The US government has assasinated people all over the world in secret missions (or that's what we are led to believe). Why is it ok to do that, but waterboarding is considered so much worse? I just don't understand.

Because Bush issued an executive order and made it legal, reversing Ford and Clinton's ban on CIA assasinations.
In this case, he changed the law.

[G.I.Jim]

The US government has assasinated people all over the world in secret missions (or that's what we are led to believe). Why is it ok to do that, but waterboarding is considered so much worse? I just don't understand.

Because Bush issued an executive order and made it legal, reversing Ford and Clinton's ban on CIA assasinations.
In this case, he changed the law.

Dude...you got a nice taco!

[treetopovskaya]

worse than being shot AND killed. you quoted donna wrong. typical.

whatever dean.

maybe people have to dumb down so you lib freaks might understand. i know it's hard... when logic gets lost.

Why is it ok to do that, but waterboarding is considered so much worse? I just don't understand.

For one donna, waterboarding is done to prisoners, many of whom aren't found guilty of anything. Secondly, waterboarding is a lot worse than being shot. It's fucking torture. Humans should not do that to one another, period, regardless of what colors the flag involved.

Christ almighty, stop trying to "dumb down" the argument at hand. You all know damned well this (torture), is a complex issue, and cannot be solved with simplistic sayings.

[treetopovskaya]

the same mccain you dissed during election?

oh... now you respect him?

*rolls eyes*

dean, lula, tnc you never answered this question...

if someone you loved was in harms way... would you do anything to get them back safely? even if it meant torturing someone?

if you say you would not you are LYING.

Go turn on channel 275, your biy Scotty N is on now.

As for your question, sure I would. However, there is absolutely zero likeness to what your asking and prisoners of war.

I wonder how come none of you fucking Cons, and I emphasize the word "fucking" because you all are so fucking dense and narrow minded, never bring up the fact Senator McCain was tortured? He, of republican ilk, is steadfast against the use of torture. I guess a POW, and war hero, and I say that with all the respect possible, has zero credence on this argument because well, he lost the election and has no more political clout.