Let's talk about that for a moment. The CIA says that Pelosi knew in 2002 when they briefed select members of Congress. Ms. Pelosi was in the briefing room when they described the enhanced interrogation techniques (EIT) they used on Abu Zubaydah, including waterboarding.
In a report to Congress on May 5, Mr. Panetta described the CIA's 2002 meeting with Mrs. Pelosi as "Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on [legal] authorities, and a description of the particular EITs that had been employed." Note the past tense -- "had been employed."Pelosi, of course, denies everything.
PawPaw doesn't care who knew what or when they knew it.
I'm against torture, and I don't think that the United States should use torture.
That having been said, I think that the word should be strictly defined. Techniques used on our troops by our military to make them resistant to torture should fall under the allowed interrogation techniques. If it's good enough for our soldiers, it's good enough for our enemies.
I've used the ticking-bomb analogy and it's a good one to use when we're discussing which interrogation techniques should be allowed. It's one thing to capture an enemy combatant and know that battlefield plans change rapidly. The intelligence value that one enemy soldier might have is very, very short. After that time elapses you simply keep him locked up, off the battlefield until he is repatriated.
However, a terrorist who is actively planning an attack might have information about cells in the country that are actively engaged in hurting Americans. That's another story entirely. You extract the information then you stand what's left against a wall and shoot him. You don't talk about it.
There is a reason why soldiers on a battlefield are treated one way and saboteurs and spies are treated another. The difference is easy to see and anyone who pretends differently is either naive or demented.
3 comments:
And stoopid to boot... Pelosi had probably dug a hole she may not get out of by accusing the CIA of lying.
As everyone who has been to any kind of business planning meeting has probably been told, "Silence is Concurrance." I'm sure she knew but tried to ignore the elephant in the room for political reasons. If she had doubts, she should have asked if "torture" had been used. The fact that she didn't ask tells me that she wanted that old fashioned political deniability.
I once knew a Special Forces MSG who was trained in interrogation. He was investigated by the Army because they were "breaking" too many officers and pilots during escape and evasion school. They wanted to be sure that the interrogation techniques were within the parameters prescribed. That was back in the Vietnam Era.
Pawpaw, you don't understand Pelosi's San Francisco mindset. She probably thought the CIA said "surfboarding."
Post a Comment