• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obama CIA pick backtracks on "torture" charge

SAWYER

Lifer
This should be interesting, and I am neutral on torture when trying to get info. is tea and cookies with a big pretty please gonna do it, don't think so.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N06286884.htm

WASHINGTON, Feb 6 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's pick to head the CIA retreated on Friday from a charge that the United States sent terrorism suspects to other countries so they could be tortured under questioning.

"On that particular quote, that people were transferred for purposes of torture, that was not the policy of the United States," Leon Panetta told a Senate hearing on his nomination to be director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

"To that extent, yes, I would retract that statement."

Panetta has long written of his opposition to abusive interrogations and torture. On the first day of his Senate Intelligence Committee confirmation hearing on Thursday, he was asked whether the CIA would continue "extraordinary renditions," where prisoners are sent outside the United States for questioning.

He replied that Obama had banned the use of secret "black sites" for questioning last month. "That kind of extraordinary rendition, where we send someone for the purposes of torture or for actions by another country that violate our human values, that has been forbidden by the executive order," he said.

He said he was uncertain of the validity of charges that terrorism suspects were tortured under questioning, but suspected that they were true, based on public reports.

Although Obama banned the "black site" program, the CIA might continue to send suspects to third countries for questioning, provided there are verifiable assurances they would be treated humanely, Panetta said.

The committee's vice-chairman, Republican Senator Kit Bond of Missouri, grilled Panetta on the torture comments on Friday and cautioned him against making "rash judgments based on hearsay."

Last year, Panetta accused Bush of supporting torture on the grounds that it would prevent another Sept. 11 attack.

"Torture is illegal, immoral, dangerous and counterproductive. And yet, the president is using fear to trump the law," he wrote in an opinion article. He said on Thursday he viewed "waterboarding," a form of simulated drowning the CIA acknowledged using on three suspects, as a form of torture.

Panetta also told the committee he supported restricting the CIA's use of outside contractors to conduct interrogations, which it has done in the past.

Panetta, a former Democratic congressman and White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton, is expected to easily win confirmation.
 
Their policy sounds fine. It's to be expected to send elsewhere--if extraditing--but definitely to date the US has sent them specifically with the expectation that they would be tortured, or at the very least disinterest about what's coming for the suspect. I'm glad Obama put down an order against this.
 
"On that particular quote, that people were transferred for purposes of torture, that was not the policy of the United States," Leon Panetta told a Senate hearing on his nomination to be director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

"To that extent, yes, I would retract that statement."

He has no proof of specific instances, so this limited retraction was necessary.

Ha how their opinion changes once they are in charge.

No, he's just saying he can't prove that the torture occurred, not that he now endorses it like Bush & Cheney do:

Panetta also told the committee he supported restricting the CIA's use of outside contractors to conduct interrogations, which it has done in the past.

Looks like you get to keep your fingernails another week.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Ha how their opinion changes once they are in charge.

Did you read the article?

How did his opinion change? He simply said he couldn't verify that in the past when people had been transferred to other countries that they had been tortured. The article specifically states he still suspects this to be true, but since he cannot prove it, he has retracted the statement.
 
the entire issue of torture has been grossly mis-handled by Bush and now Obama as well.

Publicly - you have to state that you are against all forms of torture - you simply have to.

Privately, in a jail cell in god-knows here, with an Al-Q operative who isn't cooperating - we are entitled to go Jack Bauer on his ass, but you certainly don't talk about it
 
Originally posted by: NeoV
the entire issue of torture has been grossly mis-handled by Bush and now Obama as well.

Publicly - you have to state that you are against all forms of torture - you simply have to.

Privately, in a jail cell in god-knows here, with an Al-Q operative who isn't cooperating - we are entitled to go Jack Bauer on his ass, but you certainly don't talk about it

Shh, you'll get them all rustled up again.
 
Originally posted by: NeoV
the entire issue of torture has been grossly mis-handled by Bush and now Obama as well.

Publicly - you have to state that you are against all forms of torture - you simply have to.

Privately, in a jail cell in god-knows here, with an Al-Q operative who isn't cooperating - we are entitled to go Jack Bauer on his ass, but you certainly don't talk about it

Either that, or you obey the law. You know... whatever. I know the fashionable view these days is that we obey the law when it's convenient to do so, but that's not what the law is all about.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: NeoV
the entire issue of torture has been grossly mis-handled by Bush and now Obama as well.

Publicly - you have to state that you are against all forms of torture - you simply have to.

Privately, in a jail cell in god-knows here, with an Al-Q operative who isn't cooperating - we are entitled to go Jack Bauer on his ass, but you certainly don't talk about it

Either that, or you obey the law. You know... whatever. I know the fashionable view these days is that we obey the law when it's convenient to do so, but that's not what the law is all about.

The law should not be set in stone, but in gel, so it can be moved when needed.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy

Either that, or you obey the law. You know... whatever. I know the fashionable view these days is that we obey the law when it's convenient to do so, but that's not what the law is all about.

You think this is a new phenomenon?

Name a time in history that the people in power did not bend/break laws to suit their needs.
 
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: NeoV
the entire issue of torture has been grossly mis-handled by Bush and now Obama as well.

Publicly - you have to state that you are against all forms of torture - you simply have to.

Privately, in a jail cell in god-knows here, with an Al-Q operative who isn't cooperating - we are entitled to go Jack Bauer on his ass, but you certainly don't talk about it

Either that, or you obey the law. You know... whatever. I know the fashionable view these days is that we obey the law when it's convenient to do so, but that's not what the law is all about.

The law should not be set in stone, but in gel, so it can be moved when needed.

The law isn't set in stone. It can be moved by legislative action. To do otherwise makes the law pointless.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: NeoV
the entire issue of torture has been grossly mis-handled by Bush and now Obama as well.

Publicly - you have to state that you are against all forms of torture - you simply have to.

Privately, in a jail cell in god-knows here, with an Al-Q operative who isn't cooperating - we are entitled to go Jack Bauer on his ass, but you certainly don't talk about it

Either that, or you obey the law. You know... whatever. I know the fashionable view these days is that we obey the law when it's convenient to do so, but that's not what the law is all about.

The law should not be set in stone, but in gel, so it can be moved when needed.

The law isn't set in stone. It can be moved by legislative action. To do otherwise makes the law pointless.

It should have leeway to be ignored in certain extreme circumstances.
 
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: NeoV
the entire issue of torture has been grossly mis-handled by Bush and now Obama as well.

Publicly - you have to state that you are against all forms of torture - you simply have to.

Privately, in a jail cell in god-knows here, with an Al-Q operative who isn't cooperating - we are entitled to go Jack Bauer on his ass, but you certainly don't talk about it

Either that, or you obey the law. You know... whatever. I know the fashionable view these days is that we obey the law when it's convenient to do so, but that's not what the law is all about.

The law should not be set in stone, but in gel, so it can be moved when needed.

The law isn't set in stone. It can be moved by legislative action. To do otherwise makes the law pointless.

It should have leeway to be ignored in certain extreme circumstances.

No, it shouldn't. Basically you are arguing for the people who the law was written to constrain (the executive/intel agencies) being able to decide when and where they comply with the law. It's like having a robber decide when robbery laws apply. Why bother having a law to begin with? We could all just save a lot of paper and say 'the executive gets to do what it wants as long as it means well'.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: NeoV
the entire issue of torture has been grossly mis-handled by Bush and now Obama as well.

Publicly - you have to state that you are against all forms of torture - you simply have to.

Privately, in a jail cell in god-knows here, with an Al-Q operative who isn't cooperating - we are entitled to go Jack Bauer on his ass, but you certainly don't talk about it

Either that, or you obey the law. You know... whatever. I know the fashionable view these days is that we obey the law when it's convenient to do so, but that's not what the law is all about.

The law should not be set in stone, but in gel, so it can be moved when needed.

The law isn't set in stone. It can be moved by legislative action. To do otherwise makes the law pointless.

It should have leeway to be ignored in certain extreme circumstances.

No, it shouldn't. Basically you are arguing for the people who the law was written to constrain (the executive/intel agencies) being able to decide when and where they comply with the law. It's like having a robber decide when robbery laws apply. Why bother having a law to begin with? We could all just save a lot of paper and say 'the executive gets to do what it wants as long as it means well'.

Laws that are too restrictive do nothing more than enable your enemies.
 
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: eskimospy

No, it shouldn't. Basically you are arguing for the people who the law was written to constrain (the executive/intel agencies) being able to decide when and where they comply with the law. It's like having a robber decide when robbery laws apply. Why bother having a law to begin with? We could all just save a lot of paper and say 'the executive gets to do what it wants as long as it means well'.

Laws that are too restrictive do nothing more than enable your enemies.

You didn't argue to loosen the laws (although I would also disagree with that). You argued for the ability to set the laws aside when needed. That runs contrary to the rule of law our society is based upon.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: eskimospy

No, it shouldn't. Basically you are arguing for the people who the law was written to constrain (the executive/intel agencies) being able to decide when and where they comply with the law. It's like having a robber decide when robbery laws apply. Why bother having a law to begin with? We could all just save a lot of paper and say 'the executive gets to do what it wants as long as it means well'.

Laws that are too restrictive do nothing more than enable your enemies.

You didn't argue to loosen the laws (although I would also disagree with that). You argued for the ability to set the laws aside when needed. That runs contrary to the rule of law our society is based upon.

Well, when I mean too restrictive I meant that if they were indeed set in stone for the most part until congress changed them. They should be arbitrary in time of need. (Not all the time, but circumstanced might arise where they need to be disregarded. Of course those people that have the discretion to decide this would be held accountable after the fact whether indeed it was an emergency.)
 
Don't ask, don't tell.

Perhaps someone in the White House is intelligent enough to understand what it takes to interrogate people, even if they don't want to get their hands dirty.
 
You know who you are.

You have the attention span of a 2 year old baby and the analytical reasoning of a brick ... Political hack is too kind of a label.

Obama had banned the use of secret "black sites" for questioning last month. "That kind of extraordinary rendition, where we send someone for the purposes of torture or for actions by another country that violate our human values, that has been forbidden by the executive order,"
 
Originally posted by: Sawyer
This should be interesting, and I am neutral on torture when trying to get info. is tea and cookies with a big pretty please gonna do it, don't think so.

That doesn't sound neutral, that sounds like a canard to defend torture as if it is the only other option besides playing house.
 
There is an alternative interpretation of Panetta's statement, that BushCo went rogue, broke the law in pursuit of War on Terrar! victory headlines...

It's basically a denouncement of the whole unitary executive "I can do any damned thing I please" way that Bush ran the executive branch. Panetta reaffirms the rule of law, something we shouldn't cast aside no matter how much fearmongering has been generated in support of doing what Richard E suggests.

The simple fact that the chief executive would do that should convince any rational person that the executive in question can't be trusted with the decision to do so...

Support and defend the Constitution, remember? There are no qualifiers on that...
 
Back
Top