Pelosi Did Not Object to Waterboarding in 2002
  • GovernorGovernor December 2007

    Nancy Pelosi along with a small handful of other leading democrats and republicans were given detailed tours of the CIA's torture techniques in 2002, and only one person (democrat Jane Harman) officially objected. Harman was later pushed aside when Pelosi won in 2006.

    Now, I'm all for the recent uprising in opposition to our use of torture techniques such as waterboarding that is being led by democrats, and I'm happy that Pelosi is on-board that campaign; however, it really doesn't speak much for her that a few short years ago she did nothing to put a stop to it when she found out. It really goes to show that no matter how you feel about the use of torture, the argument for or against it within congress seems largely political.

    I hope the campaign succeeds, but this definitely took her down another notch in my book.
  • GmnotutooGmnotutoo December 2007
    I fully support Jane Harman. She is from my district and I cannot be more happy with another candidate. She is also for medicinal marijuana. <3.

    Her reply from my e-mail to her:
    Thank you for contacting me about legislation relating to illicit
    narcotics. Let me be clear, I am not in favor of the comprehensive
    legalization of banned substances.

    However, I do recognize that the health science community has
    found evidence that the controlled use of marijuana can provide palliative
    benefits to people suffering from intense pain, nausea, and loss of

    Therefore, I support the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes
    if it occurs in consultation with a physician in accordance with
    California state law. My voting record in Congress reflects this position.
    In July 2004 and June 2005, I voted in favor of amendments to the
    Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations bills that supported the rights
    of states, such as California, to implement pre-existing state laws
    authorizing the use of medical marijuana. While both amendments failed, I
    am hopeful that, in time, Congress will recognize the importance of
    this amendment and pass progressive legislation.

    I appreciate hearing from you. Please keep in touch."
  • EvestayEvestay December 2007
    It was pretty close to 9/11 when she went so it is understandable. However I dont feel like anything has changed since 9/11 and so I am still fine with waterboarding.
  • romerashromerash December 2007
    you're fine with torturing?
  • dandan December 2007
    QUOTE (Evestay @ Dec 9 2007, 10:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    It was pretty close to 9/11 when she went so it is understandable. However I dont feel like anything has changed since 9/11 and so I am still fine with waterboarding.


    I had a big post typed up, but then vista decided to crap out on me, and I lost it. I can't believe you said you support torture. Bush and his lackeys responsible for the torture in Guantanamo/the Middle East should be tried for crimes against humanity.

  • EvestayEvestay December 2007
    In a recent article in Commentary, essayist Algis Valiunas recounts that when war broke out in Europe in 1939, Franklin Roosevelt "issued a plea that all combatant nations do the decent thing and refrain from bombing." And yet, he continues, "President Roosevelt's high-mindedness did not count for much once the action was under way." The Nazis, for whom terror from the skies was no more anathema than every other form of terror they practiced, were the first to bomb civilian targets, beginning with Warsaw and moving on to Rotterdam and London.
    Within a couple of years, the Allies were retaliating in kind, which in current parlance would be known as "lowering oneself to the level of one's enemies." At the Casablanca conference in January 1943, Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill promised to undertake "the heaviest possible bomber offensive against the German war effort." Six months later that terrible promise was fulfilled over Hamburg by 700 British bombers. In Mr. Valiunas's telling, it was a scene from the Inferno: "Oxygen starvation and carbon monoxide poisoning killed many; bomb shelters turned into ovens and roasted the persons inside, so that rescue workers days later found the bodies seared together in an indistinguishable mass; the molten asphalt of the streets engulfed those who fled the burning buildings."

    An estimated 45,000 people died this way in Hamburg. U.S. and British air forces would repeat the procedure over Dresden, Tokyo, Yokohama, Hiroshima, Nagasaki--cities of real or at least arguable military significance. Hundreds of smaller cities and towns of doubtful strategic value were also reduced to ash and rubble, bringing the total civilian death toll to about 600,000 Germans (including 75,000 children under 14) and a roughly equal number of Japanese. How can this be justified? Does it not greatly diminish Allied claims to moral superiority?

    Most people would argue that it does not, even though the horror of what was done to Hamburg and the other cities dwarfs in moral scale the worst U.S. abuses in the war on terror (real or alleged), which are so frequently cited as evidence that we have debased ourselves beyond recognition. Most people would also agree that the only compelling ethical defense that can be made for the bombing campaign is that it hastened Allied victory, spared at least as many lives (on both sides) as it cost, and created the conditions for a more peaceful postwar world. In other words, the question here isn't about the intrinsic morality of the bombing. It's about whether the good that flowed from the bombing outweighed the unmistakable evil of the act itself.

    Whatever side one takes here, the important point is that the debate fundamentally is about results. Note the difference with the current debate over waterboarding, where opponents argue that the technique is unconscionable and inadmissible under any circumstances, even in hypothetical cases where the alternative to waterboarding is terrorist attacks resulting in mass casualties among innocent civilians. According to this view, it is possible to wage war yet avoid the classic "choice of evils" dilemmas that confronted past statesmen such as Churchill and Roosevelt. Or, to put the argument more precisely, it is possible to avoid this choice if one is also prepared to pay for it in blood--if not in one's own, than in that of kith and kin and whoever else's life must be sacrificed to keep our consciences clear.

    For all the debate over waterboarding, it has been used on only three al Qaeda figures, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials.

    As ABC News first reported in September, waterboarding has not been used since 2003 and has been specifically prohibited since Gen. Michael Hayden took over as CIA director.

    As a result of Hayden's decision, officials say, the most extreme technique left available to CIA interrogators would be what is termed "longtime standing," which includes exhaustion and sleep deprivation with prisoners forced to stand handcuffed, with their feet shackled to the floor.

    The most effective use of waterboarding, according to current and former CIA officials, was in breaking Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, known as KSM, who subsequently confessed to a number of ongoing plots against the United States.

    A senior CIA official said KSM later admitted it was only because of the waterboarding that he talked.

    Ultimately, KSM took responsibility for the 9/ll attacks and virtually all other al Qaeda terror strikes, including the beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.

    "KSM lasted the longest under waterboarding, about a minute and a half, but once he broke, it never had to be used again," said a former CIA official familiar with KSM's case.

    6. Waterboarding (as demonstrated in the picture above): The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

    According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the waterboarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in.
  • EvestayEvestay December 2007
    By the way, I do agree that it is torture and my choice for President is John McCain who is against it. When he was asked about a 1/10000000000etc chance of catching a terrorist who had knowledge of an imminent plot and whether he would rule out waterboarding, he dodged the question. Sometimes the results outweigh the moral highground... thats all
  • redboneredbone December 2007
    Not sure what this has to do with much... but I think it is interesting how often there are forms of torturing on TV. Like when batman gets a hold of some dude, he scares him into giving him information. Same basic idea as torture. I wonder what kind of impact this has on peoples view of whether or not torture is acceptable.
  • Black+BalloonBlack Balloon December 2007
    Pardon me for being incredibly Machiavellian for a second, but I think the ends justify the means here.

    Assuming they're doing it right.

    Sometimes, I don't have much confidence that they are.
  • cutchinscutchins December 2007
    Torture makes people confess to shit they didn't do. You cannot trust anything someone says when they're saying it to get you to stop torturing them.

    How many cases have we all heard of police interrogators coercing a confession out of innocent people? I'm sure the techniques they're using aren't even half has harsh as the ones used by the CIA to interrogate terrorists, so why do you think the information they're giving could possibly be the least bit accurate?
  • BudweiserBudweiser December 2007
    Nancy Pelosi is my hero, I only wish Washington had hundreds of much to look forward too.

    Harry Reed makes me tingle all over too.
  • EvestayEvestay December 2007
    A leader of the CIA team that captured and interrogated the first major al Qaeda figure, Abu Zubaydah, says subjecting him to waterboarding was torture but necessary.

    In the first public comment by any CIA officer involved in handling high-value al Qaeda targets, John Kiriakou, now retired, said the technique broke Zubaydah in less than 35 seconds.

    “The next day, he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate,” said Kiriakou in an interview to be broadcast tonight on ABC News’ “World News With Charles Gibson” and “Nightline.”

    “From that day on, he answered every question,” Kiriakou said. “The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks.”
  • A guy at school who is a huge Giuliani supporter(one of about five I've met) agreed to get waterboarded by some other guys, because he didn't think it was torture. He's changed his mind now.
  • BudweiserBudweiser December 2007
    QUOTE (Working Class Hero @ Dec 12 2007, 12:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    A guy at school who is a huge Giuliani supporter(one of about five I've met) agreed to get waterboarded by some other guys, because he didn't think it was torture. He's changed his mind now.

    I have a nice cordless drill, if he wants to experiment some more techniques?
  • Black+BalloonBlack Balloon December 2007
    I have Animal Collective CDs and a big subwoofer system.
  • I may get waterboarded here in the next few weeks. Ya know, just to pass the time.
  • BlueBoxBobBlueBoxBob December 2007
    I read all that and does waterboarding hurt the person or is it just mental and short term torture ? Because it might be torture but if it doesn't permanently mentally change the person and it doesn't give pain to the person we can argue if it can be used or not. Although I agree with CJ, when you are tortured you can tell anything to get out of the situation so it is not accurate and the information might not be valid at all.
This discussion has been closed.
← All Discussions

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership