Posted on 05/08/2009 1:41:44 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
Pelosi: I Was Told Interrogation Methods Were Lawful The House speaker's statement came after CIA records showed Pelosi was briefed in September 2002 on the interrogation methods and appeared to contradict her claim last month that she was never told that waterboarding or other enhanced interrogation techniques were being used.
FOXNews.com
Friday, May 08, 2009
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insisted Friday that she was briefed only once about the "enhanced" interrogation techniques being used on terrorism suspects and that she was assured by lawyers with the CIA and the Department of Justice that the methods were legal.
Pelosi issued a statement after CIA records released this week showed that Pelosi was briefed in September 2002 on the interrogation methods. The briefings memo appeared to contradict the speaker's claims that she was never told that waterboarding or other enhanced interrogation methods were being used.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I don't know if chemistry is on or off the table, currently for interrogations. If it is not allowed, then that's a huge mistake, as it is a very effective method for many subjects.
But I get back to my basic point: the only thing that matters is effectiveness. It's all about finding that thing that works on each individual, and in that I would leave nothing off the menu. I'm not prepared to say that some technique is *always* wrong when I don't know the whole continuum of need.
Would you wan't Pelosi sneaking around the White House, snooping on you and Snoop????
I was referring to Geneva Conventions, Protocol II.
The Geneva Conventions which pertained to the treatment of prisoners engaged in terrorism was spelled out in Protocol II. However, Protocol II, to make it binding to the United States, had to be ratified by Congress. This was not done.
So what makes the interrogation techniques unlawful? It might be the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) case which said such prisoners were afforded prisoner-of-war protections under the Geneva Conventions.
If the Bush Administration were to be subject to prosecution due to the Supreme Court’s ruling, one must look at Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution which says that the federal government is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws. The states are prohibited from the same by clause 1 of section 10.
It appears that the Democrats are moving towards prosecution that retroactively changes the legal consequences of actions committed during interrogation techniques prior to the Supreme Court’s interpretation. Such would be a violation of Article I, section 9.
LOL! She gets to play without Satan’s support for a while.
Using historical numbers, 3,000 Americans at the Library building wouldn't have that long.
Is it morally wrong to 'torture' info out of them? You say, yes.
That's an noble position to take from an air conditioned room in front of your keyboard.
Think of someone you love on a day trip to downtown L.A. That person is going to be vaporized in hours without the info hyphenated-ali has.
Your loved one will be dead but you'll still be pure of thought and sucking on a slurpee.
Still want to wait for 6 months of, Pretty Pleases?
Oh. Thanks for that clarification.
I do really hate leftest-extremist Democrats.
If you read all of my posts, you would understand that even I would resort to heavy-handed tactics if there was something "in play". As for a prisoner who has been in custody past his "battlefield prime", that is an entirely different matter.
“Countries under attack by dictators and terrorists would have the moral high ground for my money.”
Interesting that two of the countries that have had the most terrorist attacks, England and Israel, both outlawed torture.
Anyway, not to put too fine a point on it, I think there’s not too many of us who would be upset at an AQ terrorist being tortured to find out the bomb that’s about to go off. The more difficult problem is, how do you make sure that it’s only AQ terrorists who are being tortured? I mean, it’s not like they are given a public trial before they are tortured. We are relying solely on the judgment of the people that the president places in charge as to who will be tortured and who will not. Depending on the person or persons, this could be pretty restrictive with high standards of proof and danger to the public, or it could be fairly whimsical and subject to all kinds of abuse.
For instance, does the prospect of the president (Obama or some future America-hating president) having the power to lock up anyone with no rights to be charged with a crime, no rights to a lawyer, no rights to confront witnesses, and also to hold them for an indefinite number of years, and subject them to “enhanced interrogation techniques” for the duration cause you some concern? We are not far from that point today. Perhaps the only offense might have been having the temerity to claim the president was wrong.
I guess the main difference between us is that you feel the danger from terrorism is so great that we can ignore the dangers of losing our freedom from within. I disagree. I think most tyrannies are imposed from within, rather than externally.
Where do you get the England and Israel number?
I'm more worried about a president who won't do what needs to be done, especially when he announces it ahead if time, than I am that we'll lose our moral compass.
England—IRA
Israel—nuff said
Wouldn’t you place these two in the top tier of countries that have had terrorist attacks?
As they say, the devil is in the details.
Where did you get the numbers?
“two of the countries that have had the most terrorist attacks”
versus
“the two countries that have had the most terrorist attacks”
Do you see the difference?
_______________
“Where did you get the numbers?”
I got them where you did.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.