Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
speaking of hypocrits, did you know Pelosi let people keep getting exposed to the horror that is waterboarding for years w/o speaking out?

• Waterboarding: Congress Knew
  December 11, 2007; Page A26
  After three days of screaming headlines about the CIA destroying videotapes in 2005 of the "harsh" interrogation of two terrorists, it now comes to light that in 2002 key members of Congress were fully briefed by the CIA about those interrogation techniques, including waterboarding. One member of that Congressional delegation was the future House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1197...googlenews_wsj

Setting aside the absurdity of the phrase "fully briefed," and assuming that she disagreed with what the CIA was up to, what should she have done?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Setting aside the absurdity of the phrase "fully briefed," and assuming that she disagreed with what the CIA was up to, what should she have done?

Voiced objection then, pehaps?

Per other versions of the news item, at least two members (unidentified) of this bipartisan group asked if there were actually more severe techniques.

She clearly didnt object to that line of questioning, either.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Dude, there's a divide the size of the Grand Canyon between Shamnesty proponents like McCain (depending upon what day of the week it is) and foaming xenophobes like Lou Dobbs.

So it's not an either/or.

Damn you Slave, you've burned down my soapbox.

I just like any excuse to piss on Dobbs and the protectionist crowd.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Voiced objection then, pehaps?

But what she heard was classified, so that would have been illegal. (You're forgetting that Pelosi didn't have the ability to get Bush to selectively declassify national secrets that she wanted to spread.)

Per other versions of the news item, at least two members (unidentified) of this bipartisan group asked if there were actually more severe techniques.

Hell, let's just assume both were her.

She clearly didnt object to that line of questioning, either.

Because you know that Robert's Rules of Order were being used to run the meeting and you've seen the transcript?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Lindsey Graham does outrage well, but it would be nice to see him actually go to work on this.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
With the well-established correlation between stress levels and intentional (and non-intentional) spelling errors employed in argument on this board, this is as good a sign as any that the primaries are fast approaching.

you point is "Hank spelled something wrong?" are you kidding me?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
speaking of hypocrits, did you know Pelosi let people keep getting exposed to the horror that is waterboarding for years w/o speaking out?

• Waterboarding: Congress Knew
  December 11, 2007; Page A26
  After three days of screaming headlines about the CIA destroying videotapes in 2005 of the "harsh" interrogation of two terrorists, it now comes to light that in 2002 key members of Congress were fully briefed by the CIA about those interrogation techniques, including waterboarding. One member of that Congressional delegation was the future House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1197...googlenews_wsj

I'll say this for Nancy Pelosi. She has a hell of a figure for a 63 year old woman. That's about the only recognition worthy thing I've seen from her since she's had the wheel.

Mind you, I don't downplay the significance of that. She is a great improvement over Hastert.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Setting aside the absurdity of the phrase "fully briefed," and assuming that she disagreed with what the CIA was up to, what should she have done?

what have the Dems done lately? Express outrage. Seeth?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you point is "Hank spelled something wrong?" are you kidding me?

My side comment was simply an allusion to our enlightening "Dims" and "Democrat Party" debates. But thanks for letting me know, Hank, that your hand is firmly on the wheel and we're still in the middle of the road.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Because you know that Robert's Rules of Order were being used to run the meeting and you've seen the transcript?

The transcript says the Marquis of Queensbury Rules were in effect. Get your facts straight.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
But what she heard was classified, so that would have been illegal. (You're forgetting that Pelosi didn't have the ability to get Bush to selectively declassify national secrets that she wanted to spread.)

at first I found this funny, then i realized you meant it, and it makes me sad, because GGG and Club both take this board seriously, and they will be sad when they realize you have no crumb of credibility left here.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Though I just defended Pelosi, mostly out of annoyance, I think congressional oversight of intelligence affairs is f*cked up as discussed in this post by Marty Lederman:

• The Government Institution Most in Need of Comprehensive Reform
  
  No, not the Office of Legal Counsel. The intelligence oversight apparatus. Yes, a large part of the problem is the particular Democrats who happen to be among the "Gang of Eight" and "Gang of Four." (To get a good sense of why the Senate Intelligence Committee will not get to the bottom of the latest scandal, just take a look at this lackluster performance by Jay Rockefeller yesterday on Face the Nation.) But even if we had the very best Dems on the Committee, there would still be virtually nothing they could do to address possible unlawful, or even just unwise, conduct by the intelligence agencies. (But cf. this post by Michael Froomkin on the Speech and Debate Clause.)
  
  The pattern is by now very familiar. Whenever the Administration begins to do something of dubious legality, it:
  
  1. sends to Congress messengers who the Intel committees trust -- solemn, serious, professionals, often uniformed military officers
  
  2. to inform a very select, small number of legislators of the conduct -- legislators who have developed close and trusted relationships with the intel officials briefing them and who are, quite understandably, loathe to undermine such relationships, which do, after all, facilitate trust, access, and oversight itself
  
  3. and to provide such briefings after the conduct has commenced
  
  4. in a highly classified setting
  
  5. putting the conduct in its best possible light -- in particular, making sure to insist that it has prevented terrorist attacks
  
  6. while assuring the legislators that it has been vetted by the lawyers and is legal
  
  7. without showing the legislators the legal analysis supporting the conduct
  
  8. without disclosing the legal arguments that cut the other way
  
  9. without informing the legislators of any policy-based or legal dissent within the executive branch
  
  10. while warning the legislators that they may not legally breathe a word of it to anyone -- certainly not to staff, or their fellow legislators, nor to experts outside Congress who might be able to better assess the legality and efficacy of the conduct
  
  11. and while insisting that the legislators cannot second-guess the need for classification and secrecy, even in cases -- such as with respect to OLC opinions concerning what techniques are lawful and which are not, and with respect to conduct that has been revealed to the enemy already -- where there is no legitimate justification for the classification.
  
  The reaction from the Intel Commmittees is, alas, predictable: Muted, furtive and internal (i.e., entirely ineffective) protest, at best. More often than not, acquiescence and encouragement.

He goes on to suggest reforms.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
what have the Dems done lately? Express outrage. Seeth?

Maybe she was expressing her outrage and you didn't realize that's what it was because -- unlike, say, Scooter Libby or Karl Rove (or Richard Armitage [hi Slave!]) -- she didn't disclose classified information.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
But even if we had the very best Dems on the Committee,

i like this part best!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
at first I found this funny, then i realized you meant it, and it makes me sad, because GGG and Club both take this board seriously, and they will be sad when they realize you have no crumb of credibility left here.

Though you do your level best to ensure that no one could take this board seriously, it's not working, so perhaps you should try another schtick.