Waterboarding Hypocrisy in Action
Filed under: Feature, United States — Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on December 9, 2007 @ 11:00 am CET
Many Democrats oppose the CIA using ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ such as waterboarding. They say - in my opinion rightfully - that waterboarding is torture and, thus, outlawed (by, among others the Geneva Convention and the Declaration of Human Rights). Strangely, however, leading Democrats thought slightly differently about this matter back when George W. Bush was still enjoying high approval ratings.
When four members of Congress met “in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody” in 2002, they were given a virtual tour of “the CIA’s overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.” One of the members of this small group? Nancy Pelosi.
Among the techniques CIA officers described to the group, and thus Pelosi, was waterboarding. And… no one objected. Nothing. Silence. For years. In fact, not only did no one object, two of the lawmakers present even asked whether “the methods were tough enough” and, if not, they asked the CIA to push harder.
All in all, “the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.” Only one person objected.
For those who are wondering: “The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).”
One US official summarized the mood as follows: “In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic. But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, ‘We don’t care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people’.”
Does this mean that we can finally say that waterboarding receives bipartisan support?
Why yes.
And when did Democrats like Pelosi oppose waterboarding? When the public found out about it and objected to it.
The White House and the CIA have said for months that lawmakers were informed about the practices. But, until the Times published this article, we didn’t know what members of Congress knew what and when. Now we do.
And we can now also conclude that Pelosi at all are a bunch of hypocrites.
I oppose waterboarding because I believe it’s torture. I oppose Guantanamo Bay: it should be closed. But these lawmakers, these Democratic lawmakers who attacked and continue to attack Bush for waterboarding are, quite simply, hypocrites. They knew what was going on, but didn’t speak out about it. In fact, some even wondered whether waterboarding was tough enough.
As usual, the ones who have the “holier than thou” attitude are not holier, only “more hypocritical than thou.”
Jules Crittenden comments: “Yeah, well, that was a different time. Back when war was easier, less messy. Before polls suggested there was an advantage to stating that invading Iraq wasn’t a good idea any more. Before Bush lied, people got waterboarded … excuse me, I mean ‘died’.”
Also more at Charles Johnson’s place.
And at Wake Up America! where Susan writes:
For the record, we are not discussing waterboarding in this post, we are discussing the ugly, hypocritical nature of those with knowledge that waterboarding was being used, in 2002, said nothing, and still went on in 2005 to the present time to use it for political gain without coming clean on what they knew and when they knew it and the fact that at the time they never raised any objections.
The level of anger I am seeing on the left side of the aisle at their own politicians shows adequately, the hypocrisy is not going unnoticed, they are angry they were duped by their own representatives by being led to believe it was the administration alone that condone these activities, never giving hint at their own complicity.
Exactly. This particular news isn’t about whether or not waterboarding is torture (it is in my humble opinion, yeah, I couldn’t let that one go), it’s about the hypocritical behavior of the Democratic leadership.
Susan also links to some outraged posts at liberal blogs (and they’re right to be outraged):
- Corrente: ” Well, I guess now I know why impeachment was ‘off the table’.”
- Washington Monthly: “Bottom line: it looks like they all knew about it (Graham’s denial is unconvincing given that Harman, Pelosi, and Goss all admit they were briefed and Harman even wrote a formal letter of protest), and it looks like most of them didn’t have a problem with it. Another great day for the Republic.”
- The Carperbagger Report: “If lawmakers could perhaps elaborate now on what they knew, and when, it’d be very helpful — because it sounds as if they raised concerns about waterboarding after it made headlines in 2005, not before.”
- Liberal Values: “If the situation had been reversed, we know that the Republicans would have had no qualms about sticking to their principles (regardless of whether their principles are right or wrong) and would have pushed to oppose Democratic policies without regard for the political consequences. That is why they made a more effective opposition, and why they ultimately took control of the government for so many years despite lacking the ability to govern effectively.”
The problem is, of course, that waterboarding probably isn’t truly against the principles of Democrats like Pelosi. It’s only against her principles if and when the public opposes it.
Many more links at Wake Up America!
1 C Stanley
December 9, 2007 @ 1:33 pm CETI think it’s normal and natural that we as a nation would go through this progression: overreacting to 9/11 and then pulling back after the initial shock wore off. But it’s a shame that our leaders didn’t show more, um, leadership- and that political calculations so obviously were at the forefront of their thinking throughout this time.
Kind of funny, the part where the Congresscritters complained that they weren’t allowed to have their staffers present at the meetings or to share the information with legal consultants. I guess we see who does their thinking for them.
2 Rudi666
December 9, 2007 @ 4:17 pm CET<blockquote>Kind of funny, the part where the Congresscritters complained that they weren’t allowed to have their staffers present at the meetings or to share the information with legal consultants. I guess we see who does their thinking for them.</blockquote>
Due to secrecy only the "Gang of Four" or the committe heads are allowed to see national security issues. A complete reading of the article only allows questions about Pelosi, but the article doesn’t say "a Pelosi aide" was the source. At the end of the article dissent is covered. While Hagel as a conscientious Republican dissented, Goss and Roberts said "beat’em more". Remember Porter Goss wad going to fix the CIA after Tenet, and made things worse.
3 Rudi666
December 9, 2007 @ 4:19 pm CET<blockquote>What is up with blockquote?</blockquote>
4 C Stanley
December 9, 2007 @ 4:20 pm CETRudi,
I think you either have to use the idiot buttons or click on html if you want to DIY. Anything you type in normally won’t be read as code unless you’ve shifted over to html mode.
5 Michael van der Galien
December 9, 2007 @ 4:21 pm CETWhat’s even more hilarious is that they were installed also because Rudi explicitly asked for it
6 C Stanley
December 9, 2007 @ 4:27 pm CETLOL, perhaps Rudi needs an instruction manual: "Idiot buttons for Idiots";-D
7 Rudi666
December 9, 2007 @ 4:51 pm CETThis isn’t user friendly, need a BLOCKQUOTE button, more important than lists. Nice attacks kids, maybe would be more affective if I was Injun.
8 Michael van der Galien
December 9, 2007 @ 4:58 pm CETWe HAVE a blockquote button Rudi. The one far to the right with the arrow pointing to the right of the screen.
9 Larry
December 9, 2007 @ 5:17 pm CETFunny how it was just revealed that Pelosi, Rockefeller, Bob Graham and Jane Harmon were among a few who were shown how the CIA uses torture including waterboarding, and one reaction was "push harder."
Pelosi and the others have kept silent about their little torture show and they have allowed it to continue.
10 Democrats Approved of Waterboarding in 2002, Said Interrogators Could Do More (AKA: Those Contemptible Hacks) : The Sundries Shack
December 9, 2007 @ 6:41 pm CET[…] Michael van der Galien sums it all up. Does this mean that we can finally say that waterboarding receives bipartisan support? […]
11 Rudi666
December 9, 2007 @ 7:38 pm CETcxbvcxbcb
cvxxcbbcx
MvdG see that, but it indents without quote graphics. The graphics/format used at TMV leaves no doubt that another post/article is used in quotes.
12 Michael van der Galien
December 9, 2007 @ 8:01 pm CETStop complaining and use the buttons.
13 Merle Underwood
December 9, 2007 @ 8:12 pm CETJust wondering the meaning of Virtual Tour. Was they actually taken there and showed or did they recieve the TV graphic tour. Still wondering what Waterboarding is. Merle Underwood.
14 spree
December 9, 2007 @ 8:16 pm CETExcellent summary of events. Hypocrisy in action huh? Gotta love it.
15 Rudi666
December 9, 2007 @ 8:18 pm CETMvdG Sully and BalloonJuice use more formatting to accentuate the blockquote. I can do this myself, but the site administrator could change in SS. This text would be indented(blockquote) and blue with a yellow backround. Some more text, but no box like BK with a differnent color than white. < /P> I tried, but the "source editor doesn’t allow inline style. The site is new, just making a suggestion.
Adding the following in the textbox isn’t "censored":
<P STYLE="margin-left: 1in; margin-right: 1in; color: #0000FF bgcolor :#FFFF00" >
This text would be indented(blockquote) and blue with a yellow backround.
< /P>
16 Rudi666
December 9, 2007 @ 8:23 pm CETThis text would be indented(blockquote) and blue with a yellow backround. < /P>
17 Rudi666
December 9, 2007 @ 8:28 pm CETThe choir is calling out my formating comment, but ignores the mention of McCain and Hagel dissenting on TORTURE. Are they hypocrits on the Repuglican side? Potter Goss is OK?
18 Michael van der Galien
December 9, 2007 @ 8:30 pm CETI’ll forward to the manager. It’s a good suggestion but could you do that next time in e-mail (instead of in comment threads)?
Susan: thanks!
19 Xel
December 9, 2007 @ 8:39 pm CETThis is why we need more Obama and less triangulators like Clinton. The latter are so deathly afraid of being called unpatriotic that they gladly condone or neglect the filthy acts committed in some ephemeral devotion to The Hard Line against Really Really Bad Guys.
20 AMERICAN NONSENSE » Waterboarding: They Were For It Before They Were Against It
December 10, 2007 @ 12:33 am CET[…] Hat tip to Michael van der Galien of the PoliGazette for the email bringing this news to my attention. In September 2002, four members of Congress met […]
21 Stop The ACLU » Blog Archive » They were for waterboarding before they were against it
December 10, 2007 @ 5:01 am CET[…] Hat tip to Michael van der Galien of the PoliGazette for the email bringing this news to my attention. In September 2002, four members of Congress met […]
22 Wake up America-Hypocrisy at its finest
December 10, 2007 @ 5:40 pm CETWaterboarding: They Were For It Before They Were A…
I don’t even know where to start here with all the name calling, denials, accusations and investigations, one would have to wonder how this little tidbit didn’t come to light sooner….
23 waterboarding
December 11, 2007 @ 1:30 pm CET[…] Waterboarding Hypocrisy in Action […]
24 Thomas
December 11, 2007 @ 3:23 pm CETThe climate of 2002 and 2003 was a bit different than the current one. Waterboarding only lasts for a few seconds, and it isn’t torture. Dozens of al qaeda operations were halted by the U.S. due to information received from a high up aq who had been captured, refused to give up any information, and was waterboarded. You know how long his waterboarding lasted? 35 seconds.
25 Michael van der Galien
December 11, 2007 @ 3:36 pm CET"and it isn’t torture."
Funny how CIA agents and many experts disagree with you.
26 Lynx
December 11, 2007 @ 3:37 pm CETThomas, waterboarding isn’t torture? Then I suppose you don’t think it would be wrong that it be used on American prisoners of war, right? I mean, if it’s just an "enhanced interrogation" then why worry. I mean, it’s just a little water right?
Ugh…
27 bereeDetsnist
December 11, 2007 @ 7:07 pm CET[color=#0000ff]Need
[url=http://coomahalig.info/roommate-search.htm]roommate search[/url] for Spring 2008, room is available after Dec.7th. $450 month ($465 with pet)
Home is fully furnished and nicely decorated (you just need your bedroom stuff), roommates are a young fun married couple. (Husband currently away with USMC). Male or female roomate is fine, just have to be clean and not loud!! We do have a cat so no dogs please!!
Call Danielle 229-291-1627 or Caroline 904-838-6789
[/color]
28 Wrorohextdene
December 12, 2007 @ 11:25 am CET[color=#336688]I want to get a credit card to recover my credit,
but my credit rating is not soo good.
Where can I find [/color][url=http://blogs.ign.com/BadCreditCreditCards/2007/09/18/66589/]Guaranteed Approval Online Bad Credit Loans And Credit Cards[/url][color=#336688]?[/color]
29 oOgerryOo
December 15, 2007 @ 9:05 am CETHey,
I’m Gerald.
Just saying hi - I’m new.
30 Idetrorce
December 15, 2007 @ 12:15 pm CETvery interesting, but I don’t agree with you
Idetrorce