This is good news for... the terrorists?

/and our moral superiority
//fark Jack Bauer in his torture-loving arse.

TFA: Panetta called waterboarding, the interrogation technique previously used by the CIA that simulates drowning, torture. But he said the CIA operatives who carried it out during the Bush administration should not be prosecuted.

He said he would look to the White House for more leeway if he ever felt executive orders signed by Obama limiting interrogation techniques didn't allow enough leeway in the face of an imminent threat.

I don't see how this is any different than what the Bush administration was doing. In fact, I see this saying that torture is OK.

Different guy, same shiat.

Jeffrey.Rodriguez: TFA: Panetta called waterboarding, the interrogation technique previously used by the CIA that simulates drowning, torture. But he said the CIA operatives who carried it out during the Bush administration should not be prosecuted.

He said he would look to the White House for more leeway if he ever felt executive orders signed by Obama limiting interrogation techniques didn't allow enough leeway in the face of an imminent threat.

I don't see how this is any different than what the Bush administration was doing. In fact, I see this saying that torture is OK.

Different guy, same shiat.

That's what is different.
The last guy put Alberto Gonzales in front of Congress to stumble through semantics.

Jeffrey.Rodriguez: I don't see how this is any different than what the Bush administration was doing. In fact, I see this saying that torture is OK.

But it isn't, and he didn't make any such statement that concludes that line of reasoning.

Different guy, same shiat.

I can't help but think your answer is tainted by your obvious cynicism towards government.

"If I had a ticking bomb situation and obviously whatever was being used I felt was not sufficient, I would not hesitate to go to the president of the United States and request whatever additional authority I would need," Panetta told the senators.

Leon, a bit of advice: If your operatives have a "ticking time bomb situation," I suspect there won't be enough time to bounce a request up the bureaucratic ladder.

Yep same old shiat.

TFA doesn't say he would not use torture. It says he's convinced" we can get the information without it. In fact, it seemed he reserved the right to implement torture (if ok'd by Pres) if circumstances required it. "...If I had a ticking bomb situation and obviously whatever was being used I felt was not sufficient, I would not hesitate to go to the president of the United States and request whatever additional authority I would need..." It becomes just a matter of defining "ticking time bomb" circumstances. Does it require a nuke on a New York subway or just a car bomb in a foreign market?

Burn_Atlanta: "If I had a ticking bomb situation and obviously whatever was being used I felt was not sufficient, I would not hesitate to go to the president of the United States and request whatever additional authority I would need," Panetta told the senators.

Leon, a bit of advice: If your operatives have a "ticking time bomb situation," I suspect there won't be enough time to bounce a request up the bureaucratic ladder.

If your bomb is going off tomorrow or next century you're going to get shiat intel from torture

At least they're calling the duck a duck and not an enhanced interrogation goose.

whidbey: I can't help but think your answer is tainted by your obvious cynicism towards government.

A bitter Paulbot playing the old and busted "But both parties are the same!11!1!!" card? Say it ain't so, Whidbey, say it ain't so.

Wow, this guy is a professional.

/someone had to make the reference.
//carry on.

Murkanen: Say it ain't so, Whidbey, say it ain't so.

May I call you "Joe?"

Smacky the Frog: Jeffrey.Rodriguez: I don't see how this is any different than what the Bush administration was doing. In fact, I see this saying that torture is OK.

Different guy, same shiat.

That's what is different.
The last guy put Alberto Gonzales in front of Congress to stumble through semantics.

Right, because Gonzales didn't want to come out and say waterboarding is torture, because torture is illegal. Then there's this asshole, who freely admits that it is torture, but appears to be OK with torture if he thinks the circumstances require it.

whidbey: I can't help but think your answer is tainted by your obvious cynicism towards government.

While I am cynical toward government, I disagree that calling a spade a spade sourced from my cynicism.

Whoops. Missed some <i> tags in there...

Panetta had his chance. Now he can go back to Carmel Valley and farm walnuts, thanks very much. Run for governor if you like politics, Leon, but stay away from the White House.

Jeffrey.Rodriguez: I disagree that calling a spade a spade sourced from my cynicism.

You're free to call it what you like, the truth is that you're jumping to a conclusion based on nothing but your cynicism.

Show me specifically where he says it's OK to torture, when the tone of the proceeding says the exact opposite.

I actually watched him today. Right after he said he would ask the Prez in unusual circumstances, he stated that he didn't believe the Prez would give him permission. He may not be as different from before as you would like, but at least he knows Obama is different.

Jeffrey.Rodriguez: Smacky the Frog: Jeffrey.Rodriguez: I don't see how this is any different than what the Bush administration was doing. In fact, I see this saying that torture is OK.

Different guy, same shiat.

That's what is different.
The last guy put Alberto Gonzales in front of Congress to stumble through semantics.

Right, because Gonzales didn't want to come out and say waterboarding is torture, because torture is illegal. Then there's this asshole, who freely admits that it is torture, but appears to be OK with torture if he thinks the circumstances require it.

whidbey: I can't help but think your answer is tainted by your obvious cynicism towards government.

While I am cynical toward government, I disagree that calling a spade a spade sourced from my cynicism.

This.

He's right. It's the same shiat. He doesn't say "no torture".

I mean, it should be th easiest thing in the owrld to say: "I don't care about your dumbass '24' scenarios, we, the United States, don't torture."

He won't say it. And nobody wil be prosecuted.

Getting kinda sick with obama bro. I really am.

whidbey: Show me specifically where he says it's OK to torture, when the tone of the proceeding says the exact opposite.

He said he would look to the White House for more leeway if he ever felt executive orders signed by Obama limiting interrogation techniques didn't allow enough leeway in the face of an imminent threat.

"If I had a ticking bomb situation and obviously whatever was being used I felt was not sufficient, I would not hesitate to go to the president of the United States and request whatever additional authority I would need," Panetta told the senators.

They're talking about not torturing people. He'd seek more leeway if he felt it were necessary; he would "shun" it's use, but it's an acceptable course of action if circumstances dictate. To get a little redundant here, it's acceptable, he would seek it's authorization (again, circumstances requiring it), Ergo, torture is ok.

PascalsGhost: I mean, it should be th easiest thing in the owrld to say: "I don't care about your dumbass '24' scenarios, we, the United States, don't torture."

He won't say it. And nobody wil be prosecuted.

Getting kinda sick with obama bro. I really am.

I'd say you're a tad bit hypercritical. There's a lot of that going around these days, especially here.

Jeffrey.Rodriguez: whidbey: Show me specifically where he says it's OK to torture, when the tone of the proceeding says the exact opposite.

He said he would look to the White House for more leeway if he ever felt executive orders signed by Obama limiting interrogation techniques didn't allow enough leeway in the face of an imminent threat.

"If I had a ticking bomb situation and obviously whatever was being used I felt was not sufficient, I would not hesitate to go to the president of the United States and request whatever additional authority I would need," Panetta told the senators.

They're talking about not torturing people. He'd seek more leeway if he felt it were necessary; he would "shun" it's use, but it's an acceptable course of action if circumstances dictate. To get a little redundant here, it's acceptable, he would seek it's authorization (again, circumstances requiring it), Ergo, torture is ok.

There's no guarantee that such "leeway' would be granted. All the signs are pointing to this country moving away from torture as an acceptable means of interrogation. You're jumping to conclusions.

It irritates me that politicians feel the need to have to water everything down, but I'm just not seeing any implied promise to keep doing what the Bush administration openly approved of.

If there was a ticking time bomb situation like a nuke in any American city I wouldn't have a problem with Obama and Panetta putting some terrorist turd through some awful hurting to get info to stop it. If something like that were to come about, I'd rather have a bunch of our citizens alive than thousands dead but at least you can pat yourself on the back and feel good that you were nice to the murderer.

/For ticking time bomb situations only.
//For other info like where is Osama's tomb? Not so much.
///Not at all in fact.

whidbey: There's no guarantee that such "leeway' would be granted. All the signs are pointing to this country moving away from torture as an acceptable means of interrogation. You're jumping to conclusions.

Oh I'm totally with you, it would probably be denied. However, the fact remains that the CIA director views torture as acceptable. Qualify it with "under extreme circumstances" if you want, but I think that's irrelevant. It's like being a little bit pregnant.

The man is willing to disregard US law, nevermind the constitution and international law, of which I assume you're a proponent.

It irritates me that politicians feel the need to have to water everything down, but I'm just not seeing any implied promise to keep doing what the Bush administration openly approved of.

Pasta help me, I'm about to defend the Bush administration. From my understanding it's not something they openly approved of. It was a 'Jack Bauer' scenario under which the three guys (if there were more, I'm not aware of them) were waterboarded - the very same circumstances under which the nominee would seek "leeway".

Don't water anything down:

Torture is illegal.
Waterboarding is torture.
The CIA has waterboarded.

Arrest and prosecute the offenders and their commanders, all the way up the chain until you reach the guy who ultimately ordered or approved (explicit or implied) it's use. Don't put anyone into a position of power who is is openly willing to break the law. If you're not going to do that, what farking good is the law in the first place?

moothemagiccow: If your bomb is going off tomorrow or next century you're going to get shiat intel from torture

I bet after 30 seconds with his balls in a waffle iron, that terrorist would be more than happy to talk. Any misinformation and Mr. Terrorist will be able to pour syrup on his sausage without it running off of it.

Burn_Atlanta: "If I had a ticking bomb situation and obviously whatever was being used I felt was not sufficient, I would not hesitate to go to the president of the United States and request whatever additional authority I would need," Panetta told the senators.

Leon, a bit of advice: If your operatives have a "ticking time bomb situation," I suspect there won't be enough time to bounce a request up the bureaucratic ladder.

But do we have any evidence Bush ever ordered torture be used in such a situation or was it just to find out more intel from people involved in past attacks with no imminent threat? Everything I've read says we never stopped any real attacks with torture. We tortured suspected terrorists to get confessions or intelligence on their buddies that might attack us in the future. There was no Jack Bauer threatening to put an ink pen in some dudes eye to stop a nuclear bomb going off some where. It was used even when the danger was not immediate and it hurt our chances our of convicting a terrorist of their crimes any kind of court.

My problem with this whole thing is that all anyone is focusing on is his stance on torture. That's great and all, but there's just a little bit more to his job than that. What is his stance on using technology and satellites versus human intelligence? Does he plan on changing policies regarding the types of informants the CIA can use? What is his stance on direct cooperation between the CIA and the military? What emerging threats is he concerned about and does he have any idea how the CIA should approach those? These are not really simple questions, but anyone who is going to be Director of Central Intelligence really should be prepared to answer them.

So far, Panetta's answers to written pre-confirmation questions are not very reassuring. To wit, stuff like:

A. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the CIA in clandestine operations, paramilitary activities, and collection of intelligence from human sources respectively?

I have not been briefed in detail on CIA clandestine operations, paramilitary activities, and HUMINT collection. If confirmed, I look forward to sharing my assessments with the Committee, although this will likely have to occur in closed session.

The whole thing is just a barrage of non-answers. He's flat out wrong in some of his answers (esp the ones concerning military special operations) and, and most of the rest is nothing but handwaving "I will do my best" type answers that demonstrate little understanding of any issues.

he thinks waterboarding is torture. that's good enough for me. carry on.

Smacky the Frog: This is good news for... the terrorists?

/and our moral superiority
//fark Jack Bauer in his fictitious torture-loving arse.

FTF...everyone.
There seems to be a real problem with separating reality from fiction, especially among conservatives.

Torture as an effective tool: Fiction
Torture as a effective terrorist recruitment and creation tool: Reality

I guess when someone's life philosophy is built around cowardice, selfishness, and disrespect then fiction is only place that feels safe.

The thing that has always bothered me about the "Ticking Time Bomb" scenario is that it seems so implausible outside of bad spy novels.

Why would anyone use a timebomb with a long timer in the first place?

A jihadist would just detonate it when they got it in position. Voila, instant martyr.

A IRA/ETA type bombing involves setting it and then calling the authorities/press to evacuate the people nearby and get publicity before remote detonating the bomb.

Neither involves a set timer.
Besides Dr. Evil types, who would use a time bomb that would last long enough for the authorities to find the terrorist and extract accurate information on it's location from him?

Burn_Atlanta: Leon, a bit of advice: If your operatives have a "ticking time bomb situation," I suspect there won't be enough time to bounce a request up the bureaucratic ladder.

"Ticking time bomb" situations don't happen in real life.

But it works on that TV show!!!

Repubs are idiots. Why anyone takes their opinions seriously is beyond me.

muck4doo: If there was a ticking time bomb situation like a nuke in any American city I wouldn't have a problem with Obama and Panetta putting some terrorist turd through some awful hurting to get info to stop it. If something like that were to come about, I'd rather have a bunch of our citizens alive than thousands dead but at least you can pat yourself on the back and feel good that you were nice to the murderer.

/For ticking time bomb situations only.
//For other info like where is Osama's tomb? Not so much.
///Not at all in fact.

24 is fiction you moran.

the_colonel: Yep same old shiat.

TFA doesn't say he would not use torture. It says he's convinced" we can get the information without it. In fact, it seemed he reserved the right to implement torture (if ok'd by Pres) if circumstances required it. "...If I had a ticking bomb situation and obviously whatever was being used I felt was not sufficient, I would not hesitate to go to the president of the United States and request whatever additional authority I would need..." It becomes just a matter of defining "ticking time bomb" circumstances. Does it require a nuke on a New York subway or just a car bomb in a foreign market?

I think you're saying that, to Panetta, it would be the very last resort, while to the Bush crowd, it has been the first resort -- maybe because, being the sort of people they are, they enjoy inflicting torture.

But torture should never be on the list of "possible resorts" under any circumstances. It's like saying there are circumstances in which beating an infant to death with a golf club is okay; you just have to know what those circumstances are. I don't agree.