Posted on 12/14/2014 9:55:53 AM PST by Kaslin
WASHINGTON The man who oversaw the controversial CIA interrogation program said Sunday that Rep. Nancy Pelosi was fully aware, of the methods used against militants, while former Vice President Dick Cheney continued to defend the program and reiterated that the U.S. stopped short of torture.
Both men said the techniques used -- including waterboarding -- had been approved by Bush administration lawyers and did not cross the legal line.
Jose Rodriguez, former director of the CIAs National Clandestine Service, said on Fox News Sunday that Pelosi knew every one of our enhanced interrogations, including sleep deprivation as well as slapping and pushing prisoners.
Rodriguez added that the program was the most thoroughly reviewed one in CIA history and that the recently-released Senate report betrays intelligence officials and throws the CIA under this bus.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The problem with the commie ‘RATS is that they’ve gone back to living in a 9/10/01 world.
Any jury would find that.
The question now is whether Congressional Politicians will share in the blame.
Thus the Senate Report.
You got it
Pelosi and her socialist lackeys just needs to STFU, and let the military and intelligence communities do their jobs. You know, the jobs that Americans want them to do, but that our useless POSOTUS and his bootlicking communist muslim cohorts and backers don’t.
I’ll get banned here if I say what I’m really thinking, because this just pisses me off to no end.
Yet, now, we can't pour water on the face of our enemies or keep them awake or play loud music to extract intel without catching hell from out own leaders and the world.
When did we become so pussified? North Korean and Iranian leadership should have been bombed into the stone age years back. Even Israel is reluctant to finish the job with Iran, although they did shut down one of their nuke facilities. Another world war is coming because the West has succumbed to PC.
Hey Jose, do us all a real big favor and release that copy of Obummer’s Original birth certificate that you have stashed away for a rainy day, It’s pouring here!!!!
What does he have to do with it? He retired in 2007
Jose Rodriguez (D) Texas State House
Former CIA director Jose Rodriguez
I thought (wrongly) that spook Jose Rodriguez left the CIA in 2009.
After 31 years, Rodiguez retired on September 30, 2007; he was replaced by Michael Sulick.
The methods were approved by both those on the Senate and House oversight committees.
The problem is that they all have not be arrested, had their assets seized and been exiled.
Wretchard and friends have an interesting thread on this topic. http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2014/12/10/for-we-know-not-what-we-do/#more-40821
From his two “most liked” comments:
wretchard
A refusal to apply torture must ultimately rest on taboo. The taboo need not be a religious, but it must be founded on a belief secular or otherwise so unyielding that it amounts to the same thing. Unless such an absolute prohibition undergirds a society then resistance to its use will collapse when expediency demands it.
A commitment not to torture has to be maintained in situations demanding the greatest sacrifice. If you are only opposed to torture when you have little or nothing to lose, then you are really like a fair-weather patriot, your commitment is worth nothing in a lurch.
Societies without a core belief system cannot resist applying torture when their elites are threatened. Every Marxist Leninist regime in history has not only employed, but was dependent on torture. A society which has talked itself into repealing the taboo on infanticide cannot resist the temptation to apply torture for long, once the elites decide to push that narrative. If you will kill a child you will torture your enemy.
If you press a liberal into explaining why he is opposed to torture he will ultimately be driven back on a half remembered but traditional prohibition rooted Christianity, Judaisim, or perhaps some humanistic philosophy. Something he learned in grade school to which he has a sentimental attachment. But if he reconsiders it coldly, he has no reason to maintain it.
And they won’t. Should some terrible attack ensue; or should it threaten some sacred modern narrative like feminism or gay rights; or should it endanger celebrities or politicians; if someone put a nuke under Congress then they will say what Feinstein and Rockefeller told the CIA after 9/11. “Take care of it.” Take care of it and don’t tell me what you did.
All that moral opposition to torture will vanish in a puff of smoke once their own hides are at stake, because come to think of it, their First Commandment is Thou shall not put any God before saving my ass.
The impulse to resist applying torture is irrational in the way patriotism is irrational. It springs from some fundamental belief that we should die for a country we may not even like. Because we live here. Because we were born here. And I don’t torture because it says somewhere in the Good Book or some book that “don’t do it”. If you can’t feel an impulse to fight for your country, you won’t find the impulse resist the temptation to torture once the chips are down.
A lot of the opposition to torture is superficial. It is based on guilt. But a little whiff of grapeshot gets rid of a lot of guilt. Fear does that. Yet for a civilization to survive it has to have a select number of non-negotiable taboos. Tell me, what is taboo to our great leaders? Which among them would fear to endanger their immortal soul or its secular equivalent?
wretchard
Let me say for the record what I have said before. That if I were president I would openly approve a degree of coercion, including sleep deprivation, drugs and psychological pressure. And sign it. But I would not under any circumstances, authorize torture in the Gestapo or NKVD sense. No thumbscrews, bone breaking, ice water dunking, etc. Why? Because that’s me. That’s religious conviction speaking there.
And having disauthorized torture I would take a deep breath go to the public and say: “You folks don’t necessarily share my conviction. Please understand that people are going to die because I won’t authorize this torture, because it works sometimes. I want you to know that. To understand what this choice implies.
“We’re giving up an advantage which is why it is morally hard. We are trading off something in the world we know in exchange for some value which may not even exist.
“If you don’t like the tradeoff, I understand that too. If you object, I’ll resign and gladly too. I can only promise you this: if you go along I’ll make sure that if my own son were taken to be killed and I had the power to compel his kidnapper to reveal his whereabouts to me and save him, that I am prevented from making an exception. That even if he were on the phone saying, daddy, daddy, save me, that I would lift a finger against his grinning kidnapper.
“Because I am determined that if this price should be paid then should not ask someone to make a sacrifice I will not myself undertake.”
“Are well on board here? Are we all willing to make the pact that if our sons or daughters were facing a horrible death; and torture could reveal their locations, that we would not do it?
“If not, then let’s sign on to torture now. Own up to it like men. Because otherwise we’re not serious. Let’s do all the necessary torture ourselves and not outsource it to Pakistan or Egypt. But if you are determined to avoid it, then be serious about it, like the Christians of old were, and take what comes, furnace or lions den. Because that was the choice and they chose the lion’s den. Take what comes or our morality isn’t worth a damn.
“If you want to be a saint or a hero, prepare to pay the price. That’s the way it’s always been. Any politician who promises you both convenience and a good conscience is damned liar.”
Pelosi? Full aware?
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.