CIA "tortured some folks": Barack Obama, John Brennan, Dianne Feinstein, George W. Bush, John Ashcroft

John Brennan had no choice but to call for an investigation. The Obama administration couldn't hold back the US Senate. It was also obvious that the hacking had occurred. It was decided that Brennan's best cover after he said the CIA hadn't done what it did was for him to be seen as calling for the investigation.

cia-liarObama knew what would happen before Brennan was credited for calling for it. The decision was Obama's, and you see him spinning the story to continue covering for John Brennan (and himself) rather than firing him instantly.

Of course in this administration, such a firing would be a joke. Barack Obama is a game player. He is always calculating and never simply doing the right thing, never.

How could Brennan not have known what had happened: the hacking by the CIA into the Senate's computers? Did his people simply lie to him? If that had been it, the whole thing would have been handled differently.

They're good at trying to cover their tracks but not that good. They're never as smart as they think they are. That's why they're sliding down.

As for the torture statement Obama made there, he did his best to make people "understand" those who torture people and those who ordered it and those who authorized it. Well, no. How Barack Obama discussed it there was exactly wrong. He should not have said a word of "understanding." That's providing aid and comfort to the enemy. He called them patriots. Patriotic about what, torture? The man is confused, and he spends his efforts on spreading it.

He wanted not to have to deal with the issue, but Sen. Dianne Feinstein wants us to believe that she was living under a rock when she was being supposedly mis-briefed about "enhanced interrogation techniques." Well, maybe I had overestimated her intelligence by magnitudes of order. She wants the world to know that she was stupid and vastly less informed about what the CIA was doing than most of us who were following alternative media rather than complicit. Therefore, Barack Obama can't, as much as he had hoped, simply look forward. Feinstein, unless she's much dumber than she already has allowed herself to appear, must force the issue all the way back to George W. Bush and everyone in his inner circle who, unlike (maybe) Dianne, knew full well there was waterboarding and much worse and that it was torture. Just ask then Attorney General John Ashcroft.

If Feinstein doesn't do that, then she shouldn't have started anything. Not only will she still not be redeemed, she'll go down as being as dumb as it gets in the US Senate.

Update, August 3, 2014: Here's an interesting article by Jeff Kaye: "Obama Admits He Banned Only 'Some' of the CIA’s Torture Techniques." Note this from that article:

An Executive Summary of that report, in a censored version produced by the CIA itself, is now back in the hands of the SSCI, who may or may not release it soon. The Committee has already decided the full 6000 or so page report itself will not be released for years (if ever), a cover-up of immense proportions.

Before releasing the damning evidence, they plan, as they always do, to wait until everyone alive at the time who could be prosecuted or do anything about it or was fired up about the evil is dead.

You'll also note the reference to the KUBARK manual. I was thinking about that manual before I saw Jeff's post. I was also thinking about exactly when Senator Feinstein is saying that she first learned about the enhanced interrogation techniques that were actually being used. She may be hedging over chronology and such. It simply seems to me that she was supporting the interrogation efforts without raising any concerns publicly while the rest of us were sounding alarms and based upon hard, open evidence.

Feinstein, of course, can still claim that her hands were tied, as in that she was bound to silence concerning briefings.

Frankly, I've never bought into that argument. I can't see where any US Senator is bound to silence when informed of illegality regardless of who's doing it or the rationale.

What's the US Supreme Court going to do, side with the President against a Senator when the President has done illegal things and the Senator has outed the President for doing them? If the court were to do that, it would be time to overthrow the government for sure. The Constitution wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on because those bound to enforce it wouldn't be and even concerning what clearly matters most: separate branches and actually working checks and balances.

Personally, I think the thing is broken already and has been for a very long time (if it ever really worked at all).


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.