CNN's Bash wrong about Panetta response to Pelosi
SUMMARY: Dana Bash mischaracterized Leon Panetta's response to Nancy Pelosi's allegation that during secret briefings in 2002 and 2003, the CIA had misled her about its use of waterboarding.
In a report that aired on the May 18 editions of CNN's The Situation Room, Lou Dobbs Tonight, and Anderson Cooper 360, CNN congressional correspondent Dana Bash mischaracterized CIA director Leon Panetta's response to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) allegation that during secret briefings in 2002 and 2003, the CIA had misled her about its use of waterboarding. Bash stated that at a press conference that day, "Panetta refused to talk about his stinging response to Pelosi last week: The CIA does not mislead Congress." In fact, the May 15 statement from Panetta stated, "Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress [emphasis added]." As Politico's White House reporter Josh Gerstein noted in a May 18 post, "Panetta didn't reject or deny ... Pelosi's allegations that she was falsely briefed by the CIA about interrogations. Look carefully at Panetta's statement from Friday, especially the verb tense used. ... Panetta isn't opining on past acts. He's referring to the current policy. He's also not saying it never happens or happened that someone lied to or misled Congress. He's saying the agency as a whole doesn't intend to."
From Gerstein's May 18 post titled, "3 Monday heresies":
2. Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon Panetta didn't reject or deny House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's allegations that she was falsely briefed by the CIA about interrogations.
Look carefully at Panetta's statement from Friday, especially the verb tense used. "Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress." First, "let me be clear" always precedes an ambiguous statement. Without fail. Panetta isn't opining on past acts. He's referring to the current policy. He's also not saying it never happens or happened that someone lied to or misled Congress. He's saying the agency as a whole doesn't intend to.
Panetta was at his Monterey, Calif. think tank when this all happened in 2002 and 2003. He doesn't know if Pelosi was lied to. He also doesn't say he talked to the briefers and is convinced they're telling the truth. He just says the paper records say she was briefed about the techniques. We knew that already from agency statements. So he's adding his voice to the mix and sending a signal that he'll stand by his agency, but to say he sided with the briefers on the specifics is just wrong.
Again, I'm not saying Pelosi was lied to or even misled. It would seem rather brazen to do that. But Panetta's statement says less than people are claiming.
From Panetta's May 15 statement:
There is a long tradition in Washington of making political hay out of our business. It predates my service with this great institution, and it will be around long after I'm gone. But the political debates about interrogation reached a new decibel level yesterday when the CIA was accused of misleading Congress.
Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values. As the Agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing "the enhanced techniques that had been employed." Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened.
My advice -- indeed, my direction -- to you is straightforward: ignore the noise and stay focused on your mission. We have too much work to do to be distracted from our job of protecting this country.
We are an Agency of high integrity, professionalism, and dedication. Our task is to tell it like it is -- even if that's not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it.
From the May 18 edition of CNN's The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer:
WOLF BLITZER (host): Just a short while ago, the CIA director, Leon Panetta, passed up an opportunity to criticize the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi. But, privately, some Democrats are desperate to try to move beyond Pelosi's claim that she was misled by the spy agency back in 2002.
Our senior congressional correspondent, Dana Bash, is watching this story for us. What's the latest, Dana?
BASH: Well, the latest is that we have spoken to several Democratic congressmen, liberals, and Republicans, who say that they do still back the speaker, but they do, as you said, want to move on. But the Republican strategy, Wolf, is to not make that happen.
[begin video clip]
BASH: Inside this Capitol office, aides to House Republican Leader John Boehner are working to keep the heat on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, churning out press releases touting coverage of Boehner's challenge to Pelosi on CNN's State of the Union.
BOEHNER: Lying to the Congress of the United States is a crime. And if the speaker is accusing the CIA and other intelligence officials of lying or misleading the Congress, then she should come forward with evidence.
BASH: But Republicans know the only way for Pelosi to prove her claim that the CIA lied to her about waterboarding is if highly classified notes taken at her September 2002 briefing back her story.
PELOSI: I would be very happy if they would release the briefings.
BASH: Pelosi wants those notes declassified, but sources with knowledge about deliberations on the issue tell CNN it's unlikely the CIA and the White House will allow it.
Meanwhile, a lingering question is whether the controversy and specifically this performance --
PELOSI: I'm sorry, the page is out of order.
BASH: -- has cost Pelosi support among fellow Democrats. [Rep.] John Larson [D-CT], one of her most loyal deputies, says no, but does admit --
LARSON: I think, you know, it perhaps wasn't one of her best press conferences, but certainly everybody in this caucus understands and stands behind her moral certitude and her ability to lead in our caucus.
BASH: Still, several Democratic sources tell CNN that, privately, some congressional Democrats are baffled by Pelosi's decision to escalate the controversy last week by going after the CIA.
PELOSI: That the CIA was misleading the Congress.
REPORTER: Do you believe Speaker Pelosi?
BASH: On that front, CIA director Leon Panetta refused to talk about his stinging response to Pelosi last week: The CIA does not mislead Congress. Instead, he tried to calm the political storm.
PANETTA: We have been through a rough period. When the Congress and the CIA don't feel like they're partners in this effort, then, frankly, it hurts both, and, more importantly, it hurts this country.
[end video clip]
BASH: Panetta also said that this is about the most partisan he has ever seen Washington in his more than 40 years in politics. And, Wolf, he insisted he would do his part to try to change that.
BLITZER: Dana, thanks very much.
In the meantime, wasn't it fun to see the republicans squirm when it first happened?
Of course it was. They'll squirm even more when Franken is finally seated.
Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values"
MMfA isn't comfortable with the word "stinging"? I guess it's their opinion, but I'd bet money on the fact that Nancy Pelosi felt a little sting from Panetta's comments.
That's not what Panetta said. He said: "It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress"
Now, you can dismiss the difference as "word parsing", but we're talking politics and the CIA... they live and die by the parsed word.
- First - the use of language that seems to say one thing but actually leaves the door open for a different interpretation is an effort to avoid lying by simply deceiving. The important point is, Panetta spoke. He could have said, "I'll be looking into that allegation." or "I have known the speaker for many years and if she says she was deceived, I believe her." or "If anyone from the CIA engaged in giving false reports to members of Congress I want to know who it was and if anyone from the evil Bush Administration had anything to do with it." He didn't say those things. He said it was against their policy to lie ...
- Second - When exactly did CNN, a.k.a. the Clinton News Network, become a Conservative "Noise Machine" conspirator? When did Dana Bash become a Conservative? It's as though "Conservative" means anyone who disagrees or finds fault with the Progressive agenda.
Now, just assuming that I'm not trying to lie to you, but presenting an honest opinion, who do you think are the people between my side and your side?
I dont assume you are trying to lie to me. I accept unconditionally that you are presenting an honest OPINION, I just think it is wrong. I would say you are moderate to middle right while I am pretty far left so those between us, and this is subjective to the point of being meaningless but you asked, would be from moderate to to moderate left.
The point is that none of the OPINIONS are evidence that the media is overwhelmingly liberal. AS a liberal I find the idea laughable. It is just your side keeps repeating it over and over TRYING to make it true through repitition. Stating an opinion as fact a thousand times will never magically transform it from an opinion to a fact
On one hand Rush and Hannity claim record audience and on the other hand, they blame the main stream media. Are they main stream or fringe?
Well, go back to July 6,2003, when *DANA BASH* was the first journalist to make the claim that Cheney was defending himself against the accusation that he had sent Joe Wilson to Niger. The problem with that was, Joe Wilson had never made that accusation, no other journalist had ever made that accusation, Dana Bash was the very first journalist I have found to have made the claim that Wilson had accused Cheney. Not only that, but Wilson had specifically said the CIA sent him in his Op-Ed, and the anchor who introduced Bash specifically said the CIA sent Wilson in his intro.
Dana Bash had bought into the Cheney smear campaign early on.
As has often been said, if the press is so liberal why did Clinton look so bad?
Dana Bash did get one thing right, Pelosi can't prove the truth of what she said without release of classified material. And Boehner knows that. Which makes the Boehner smear campaign so obvious.
If you doubt CNN is a conservative noise machine, give me a list of liberal commentators on CNN, and contrast that with the list of conservatives.
The Pelosi dust-up is just a manufactured outrage from the right. The question that should be at the top of every Americans mind is:
The United States Of America under the cheney/bush administration sanctioned, promoted and committed acts of torture/waterboarding etc. end of story. Waterboarding is torture and torture is against the law. U.S. CODE TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > § 2340a
Section 2340A. Torture
(a) Offense. - Whoever outside the United States commits or
attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to
any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be
punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction. - There is jurisdiction over the activity
prohibited in subsection (a) if -
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States,
irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged
offender.
(c) Conspiracy. - A person who conspires to commit an offense
under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other
than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the
offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.
Detainees have died in custody. Now you know why the right is making all the fuss about Ms. Pelosi and trying to grasp at straws to distract the American people from the real crimes that were committed by the cheney/bush administration/criminal enterprise.
SEMPER FI!
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment orPunishment,any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or athird person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a thirdperson has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating orcoercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of anykind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or withthe consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in anofficial capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arisingonlyfrom, inherentin or incidental to lawful sanctions
There can be no question waterboarding is torture. It was torture when it was used during the Spanish Inquisitions. It was torture when WE put Japanese officers in PRISON for doing it and when we sentenced an American Sherrif to ten years in prison for doing it. It doesnt suddenly NOT become torture because that would be convienient for the Bush Administration
Waterboarding under the Japanese often included the addition of caustic chemicals, other extreme conditions not present at Guantanimo and it was often done to the death of the prisoner. Forcing a filthy or diseased prisoner to take a bath could involve moments of choking with a sense of drowning and under the "anything that invlolves water in an airway could be torture," virtually every prison, jail, daycare center, ER, hospital and summer camp in America is a hot bed of torture. The ridiculousness of that is why standards were established, so prisoners couldn't claim they were tortured just because things were done to them that they didn't like. Those standards are described in GC3.
The Spanish Inquisition has no legal relativity. As a cultural issue, its practices were most influentially known through the wildly successful book, The Martyrs. Successful though it was, the Martyrs was a piece of British, anti-Spanish propoganda. The Spanish did not consider the Inquisition torture as such. They believed they were injuring the body in order to rescue the far more important immortal soul. The object being tortured was Satan and his demons. The reference is inappropriate.
I'm not familiar with the American Sherrif example, but I'd point out, the legal context for any action by a sherrif is very different and probably not comparable to those of non-uniformed combatants on property owned by the Republic of Cuba. Which brings up the fact your side ignores, that GC3 does not apply in this condition anyway. These prisoners are under no legal protection. (neither does GC4)
Finally - harsh interrogation does not become torture just because that would be convenient for the Bush Administration's opponents.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
Ah NO. I have already posted AT LEAST four or five times the DESCRIPTION by the soldiers involve OF the actions which led to the Japanese convictions and they are FLAT OUT WATERBOARDING nothing about caustic chemicals. Your flight of fancy about making people take baths being torture because of what they MIGHT DO accidentally as if it were the same as INTENTIONAL infliction of drowning is ludicrous on the face of it. It is like saying since you MIGHT accidentally shoot someone shooting a gun is murder.
The legal ACTION for sentencing the Sherrif to TEN YEARS IN PRISON is that it is a lot worse than a simple assault which would have a much lesser sentence and the Spanish inquisitions killed THOUSANDS whether Torquemada considered HE was justified because he is saving souls doesnt really mean anything he was torturing people and not a single history lessen I ever took said anything else. Got some evidence that there are people who think the Spanish Inquisitions were NOT torturing people?
Doesnt APPLY? That is a JOKE
From GC3
Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria
Did you SEE that word detention? Is it your claim that these people were NOT detained?
From www.icrc.org:
This assertion promotes the argument that persons who fail to qualify for prisoner of war status under Geneva Convention III are categorically outside of the protections of the Geneva Conventions. However, Geneva Convention IV, Article 4 provides protected status to persons "who find themselves . . . in the hands of a party to the conflict", unless they fail to meet certain nationality criteria or are covered by the other Geneva Conventions. Detainees not protected by those other Conventions, and who do meet the nationality criteria for coverage under Geneva Convention IV do, indeed, 'have a label in the law of war conventions'. That label is "civilian", or "protected person" under Geneva Convention IV – even if they are definitely suspected of activity hostile to the security of the detaining State or of being "unlawful combatants". Persons who do not meet the nationality criteria are covered by Article 75 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. This article forms part of customary international law.
The GC also states DIRECTLY that NO detainee can be put beyond the law.
You are simply WRONG about this.