Customer Discussions > Politics forum

60 minutes - Enhanced Interrogation


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 26 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Apr 30, 2012 1:49:48 PM PDT
ET says:
Anyone watch the show? The guy who ran the enhanced interrogation program for the CIA was interviewed by Leslie Stall (sp?). She asked if he/they went to the dark side, and he admitted that they are the dark side.

When she said that the U.S. doesn't do that, he said that we do.

Posted on Apr 30, 2012 10:14:10 PM PDT
We need Section 31. Wait we have them. It's those guys who waterboard for their country, not knowing that their bosses wanted to put them on Trial even after approving the practice.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 30, 2012 10:18:42 PM PDT
D. Robinson says:
He was on hannity tonight, and hannity asked about the dark side comment. He was talking about how the CIA are the ones working in the shadows, how they do the things no one else is willing to do to keep the country safe.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 30, 2012 11:16:53 PM PDT
Axiomatic!!! says:
I'm not sure I'd call what they do "keeping America safe".

They work for the corporations. From installing the Shaw in Iran to regime change all over the place since then, their mission is to bribe governments to allow easy access to natural resources. If that fails the jackals go in and incite opposition or even assassinate. If that fails, we send our military.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 30, 2012 11:17:02 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 30, 2012 11:17:42 PM PDT
I just heard him say that Pelosi knew about the water boarding when she said she didn't.

Posted on Apr 30, 2012 11:26:01 PM PDT
Mark Time says:
60 minutes is still on the air?

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 2:12:17 AM PDT
ET says:
I didn't hear him say that, but I've always believed that she knew about the water boarding. All indications, except her denials, indicated that she knew.

Posted on May 1, 2012 2:17:11 AM PDT
Ex-CIA counterterror chief says Pelosi `reinventing the truth' about waterboarding

In an explosive memoir released today, former CIA counterterrorism chief Jose Rodriguez provides new evidence that Rep. Nancy Pelosi lied when she declared she had not been briefed about the use of waterboarding.

Recall that in a Capitol Hill news conference three years ago, Pelosi (D-Calif.) vehemently denied being told about the use of waterboarding at a CIA briefing in September 2002. "We were not - I repeat - were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used," Pelosi said. She later changed her story, telling reporters, "We were told explicitly that waterboarding was not being used." She claimed she learned about the use of waterboarding the following year, only after other lawmakers were told by the CIA. "I wasn't briefed, I was informed that somebody else had been briefed about it," she said.

If Rodriguez is right, each of these statements is false. But other than a chart released by the CIA noting that Pelosi, then the ranking member of the House intelligence committee, and Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.), then chairman of the committee, had been given a "description of the particular [enhanced interrogation techniques] that had been employed," there was little public evidence to contradict Pelosi's claims. So she got away with it - until today.

In his new book, "Hard Measures," Rodriguez reveals that he led a CIA briefing of Pelosi, where the techniques being used in the interrogation of senior al-Qaeda facilitator Abu Zubaida were described in detail. Her claim that she was not told about waterboarding at that briefing, he writes, "is untrue."

"We explained that as a result of the techniques, Abu Zubaydah was compliant and providing good intelligence. We made crystal clear that authorized techniques, including waterboarding, had by then been used on Zubaydah." Rodriguez writes that he told Pelosi everything, adding, "We held back nothing."

How did she respond when presented with this information? Rodriguez writes that neither Pelosi nor anyone else in the briefing objected to the techniques being used. Indeed, he notes, when one member of his team described another technique that had been considered but not authorized or used, "Pelosi piped up immediately and said that in her view, use of that technique (which I will not describe) would have been `wrong.' " She raised no such concern about waterboarding, he writes. "Since she felt free to label one considered-and-rejected technique as wrong," Rodriguez adds, "we went away with the clear impression that she harbored no such feelings about the ten tactics [including waterboarding] that we told her were in use."

So we're left with a "he said-she said" standoff? Not at all. Rodriguez writes that there's contemporaneous evidence to back his account of the briefing. Six days after the meeting took place, Rodriguez reveals, "a cable went out from headquarters to the black site informing them that the briefing for the House leadership had taken place." He explains that "[t]he cable to the field made clear that Goss and Pelosi had been briefed on the state of AZ's interrogation, specifically including the use of the waterboard and other enhanced interrogation techniques."

Rodriguez asks, "So Pelosi was another member of Congress reinventing the truth. What's the big deal?" The big deal, he explains, is "the message they are sending to the men and women of the intelligence community who to this day are being asked to undertake dangerous and sometimes controversial actions on behalf of their government. They are told that the administration and Congress `have their back.' You will forgive CIA officers if they are not filled with confidence."

Rodriguez compares Pelosi's actions to the opening scene of the old TV series "Mission: Impossible," "in which the operatives were told that if anything went wrong, their leaders would `disavow any knowledge of your actions.' That is not how it should work in the real world," he writes.

It is a big deal for another reason. If Rodriguez is right, it means that Pelosi stood up in a Capitol Hill news conference and lied with a straight face to the American people; that she falsely accused a dedicated civil servant of lying to Congress as part of a political cover-up. Pelosi is hoping to become House speaker again after the November elections. Do we really want someone so ethically challenged to be third in line to the presidency?

There is a simple way to settle this once and for all. Pelosi should formally request that the Obama administration declassify the cable that was sent from headquarters to the field reporting on the details of her Sept. 4, 2002, briefing. If she refuses to do so, it should be taken as an admission by Pelosi that her account of events is a fabrication.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ex-cia-counterterror-chief-pelosi-lied-about-waterboarding/2012/04/30/gIQAQFGtrT_print.html

Posted on May 1, 2012 4:29:08 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 1, 2012 4:29:44 AM PDT
A customer says:
"Nancy Pelosi lied when she declared she had not been briefed about the use of waterboarding"

NOoooooooooooo Nancy Pelosi has never told a lie? After all, Nancy was honest when she said "We will ALL
just have to read Obamacare after it's passed ( NO Republican votes) to see what's in it".

"........... Hope & Change YOU Can *err* Can't Trust..............."

Next

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 12:19:56 PM PDT
English teacher says:
I didn't hear him say that, but I've always believed that she knew about the water boarding. All indications, except her denials, indicated that she knew.
==================

I heard him say it on a radio show he was a guest on.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 12:30:15 PM PDT
Rev. Otter says:
<<Section 31>>

nice reference, but inaccurate. Section 31 answered to no one, and preferred genocide to waterboarding. :)

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 12:34:17 PM PDT
John M. Lane says:
In reply to the original post, I watched the show. I was appalled that Leslie Stahl didn't seem to realize that the US needed to engage in espionage in order to protect itself. Is she really that naive, or is she working for the other side?

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 2:10:56 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 2, 2012 2:30:52 AM PDT
ET says:
She seemed quite naive to me, but I decided that she was following someone else's orders.

Open slap - She doesn't understand the meaning behind an open slap even when the guy explains that the slap nor any of the interrogations were intended to cause pain.

Food modification - I understood that immediately. Ensure has all of the nutrients but none of the satisfaction of actually eating in it.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 2:20:08 PM PDT
English teacher says:Food modification - I understood that immediately. Ensure has all of the nutrients but none of the satisfaction of actually eating in it.
===============
how did my mom enter this discussion?

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 2:21:29 PM PDT
ET says:
Ha ha!

Posted on May 1, 2012 2:21:37 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jun 4, 2012 12:55:44 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 2:31:19 PM PDT
I heard it on the radio. The guy is a war criminal and should be in jail.

BTW, the book is being published by the parent company of CBS.

60 minutes used to have some credibility, but that's all WAAAY in the past. Now all they do is shill for their corporate partners. Oh, and leslie Stahl is a moron.
Your reply to Tyrone Slothrop's post:
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
 

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 2:42:07 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 1, 2012 2:48:39 PM PDT
ET says:
He's not in jail and had permission for every act that he did. I ordered the book yesterday.

EDIT: The justice department cleared him of any criminal activity.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 3:50:20 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 2, 2012 1:25:11 AM PDT
Tyrone Slothrop says:
I heard it on the radio. The guy is a war criminal and should be in jail.
------------------


The man is trying to protect Americans lives. We're blowing the hell out of people in Afghanistan and previously Iraq. Men, women, children. body part all over the place... and you're worried about water boarding. sheesh.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 3:54:57 PM PDT
ET says:
Yes, people walk away from water boarding, but they don't walk away from assassinations. Only a hypocrite would be appalled at interrogation and content with assassination.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 4:12:19 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 2, 2012 1:25:28 AM PDT
English teacher says:
Yes, people walk away from water boarding, but they don't walk away from assassinations. Only a hypocrite would be appalled at interrogation and content with assassination.

=====================

on a different note.

I think i know why Obama ate his dog. The dog ate his homework. So he ate his dog. "Barry, where is you homework?" " i ate it."

also. I can hear the news helicopters outside. the OWS may day march is not far from here. I heard a OWS guy on the radio say they are not going to take it anymore. I still can figure out what they actually want. Besides destroying stuff they do not like or can't understand.

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 1:52:01 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 2:20:23 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 2, 2012 2:21:50 AM PDT
Don says:
"Open slap - She doesn't understand the meaning behind an open slap even when the guy explains that the slap or any of the interrogations were intended to cause pain."

Actually, my recollection was the opposite, that the primary intent of the slap, while it might be painful, was to insult the interrogatee and let him know who was in charge. I concur that he made sure prior to every session he had approval from the highest sources. I found the interview enlightening and did not feel he came out looking like the bad guy.

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 2:31:53 AM PDT
ET says:
You're right. I just edited my post. The difference between "nor" and "or" is great, but I missed the typo.

Thanks, and I didn't think he came out looking like the bad guy either.

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 9:20:38 AM PDT
A customer says:
kbw ~ right now liberals are trying to take over OWS with their Soros, Moveon & Union money. OWS says, no no no no, we don't care about your money or the bum in the White house. I will link the MSNBC article for you, I have MSN for my email, so I get MSNBC news on my home page for my email.

You have to scroll to the bottom of the article to see where OWS is rejecting a Democrat take over of their cause.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/01/11485652-protesters-hit-streets-for-may-day-rallies-violence-flares-in-oakland-seattle?lite
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  14
Total posts:  26
Initial post:  Apr 30, 2012
Latest post:  May 2, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions