Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Repudiation of the Dark Side?

Here's this, from the letter on behalf of 200 psychologists requesting that President-Elect Obama renounce rumors of John Brennan's nomination to the CIA (via Memeorandum):

In order to restore American credibility and the rule of law, our country needs a clear and decisive repudiation of the “dark side” at this crucial turning point in our history.
God, that's sounds so horribly beyond the pale.

But I mean, c'mon, even
Nancy Pelosi supported waterboarding in 2002, when briefed by the CIA on enhanced interrogation techniques (with three other top congressional Democrats).

You do what you have to do to fight and win. Democrats even know that - when the electoral winds are blowing that way, at least.


CKAinRedStateUSA said...

Here's the e-note I just sent to Stephen Soldz at ssoldz@bgsp.edu.
At his blog "Psyche, Science, and Society," he identifies himself as "Psychoanalyst, Psychologist, Researcher, and Activist."

The note:

"Break with the dark side? Are you all nuts? That certainly doesn’t seem like a professional statement, but one of emotionally driven politics.

"But then what do I know? I don’t have the union card of a psychologist.

"BTW: Do you all plan on writing Obama another letter that asks him to repudiate his stance on abortion and to urge an end to that barbaric and horrific practice?

"That actually does take lives, thousands of them, daily.

"And that’s true evil, the real 'dark side.'

"The one that has truly tainted, if not indelibly, the moral fiber of our country, if any such collective thing still exists.

"Best . . . "

AmPowerBlog said...

Well, good for you, CKA. These people are unreal...

Anonymous said...

"You do what you have to do to fight and win."

I dunno, that sounds like moral relativism to me.

AmPowerBlog said...

Moral relativism?

You would know, right Just a Guy...

repsac3 said...

Nancy Pelosi supported waterboarding in 2002,

From the WaPo article cited as "proof":

Congressional officials say the groups' ability to challenge the practices was hampered by strict rules of secrecy that prohibited them from being able to take notes or consult legal experts or members of their own staffs. And while various officials have described the briefings as detailed and graphic, it is unclear precisely what members were told about waterboarding and how it is conducted. Several officials familiar with the briefings also recalled that the meetings were marked by an atmosphere of deep concern about the possibility of an imminent terrorist attack.


Pelosi declined to comment directly on her reaction to the classified briefings. But a congressional source familiar with Pelosi's position on the matter said the California lawmaker did recall discussions about enhanced interrogation. The source said Pelosi recalls that techniques described by the CIA were still in the planning stage -- they had been designed and cleared with agency lawyers but not yet put in practice -- and acknowledged that Pelosi did not raise objections at the time.


In a rare public statement last month that broached the subject of his classified objections, Feingold complained about administration claims of congressional support, saying that it was "not the case" that lawmakers briefed on the CIA's program "have approved it or consented to it."

And don't forget, it was Republican John McCain who was among the first to speak out against waterboarding as soon as it was possible to do so, first to White House officials privately, and then to the American people publicly.

AmPowerBlog said...

Repsac: Why quote all of this when all you need is:

"Pelosi did not raise objections at the time..."

If torture was so bad, why not object? Election winds, you think?

repsac3 said...

First off, Nero, if you want to talk about a post on your blog, talk about it on your blog, rather than posting off-topic on mine.

Reppy: If you're going to parse, you should pay attention to the key passages, for example:

"The source said Pelosi recalls that techniques described by the CIA were still in the planning stage -- they had been designed and cleared with agency lawyers but not yet put in practice -- and acknowledged that Pelosi did not raise objections at the time."

No objections? Why, if torture is so horrible, and the "dark side," blah, blah, bhah. There should be no gray zone with matter like this.

The source doesn't even say waterboarding was among the planned techniques on which she was briefed. If she was, perhaps you have a point. I'm sure she was being political, given the atmosphere at the time. It's no different that Bush suddenly finding the wherewithall to allow timetables for withdrawal... Many politicians shift with the political winds, and yes, Pelosi is among them...

I'm surprised you're complaining, given that early on, she agreed to the torture you support to this day.

If Democratic leaders weren't just out for reelection, they'd have rejected even the thought of a briefing on waterboarding. Just like the Iraq war, they go along with national security requirements when it's electorally acceptable.

Again, assuming waterboarding was even discussed, you are correct. Pelosi shifted with the political winds on torture. I'm not so sure it was electoral, rather than fear based, but either way, there you are...

I'm not so sure as many Dems supported the invasion of Iraq as you think, though... They did support giving Dubya the power to use it as a diplomatic threat, but many've said they didn't think Bush was stupid enough to actually do it. (or words to that effect...) Guess the joke was on them, eh? Of course he was...

You lose, again, Reppy! FAIL!!!

"Oh... You got me, Doc... I'm fadin' fast..."

(Does posting stupid things like that last bit really make you feel like more of a man, or something? 'Cause... it's kinda lame...)