Panetta: I'd shun controversial interrogation techniques

Panetta: I'd shun controversial interrogation techniques

www.cnn.com

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama's choice to be the next CIA director said Thursday that, on his watch, suspected terrorists would not be tortured or sent to other countries that might use torture.
CIA chief nominee Leon Panetta answers questions Thursday at his confirmation hearing.

CIA chief nominee Leon Panetta answers questions Thursday at his confirmation hearing.

The confirmation hearing for Leon Panetta, before the Senate Intelligence Committee, was dominated by questions about the Bush administration's interrogation, detention and rendition programs and Obama's efforts to change those policies.

Panetta told the committee he was "absolutely convinced ... we can get the information we need, we can provide for the security of the American people and we can abide by the law."

Panetta said the U.S. government had sent detainees to other countries to be tortured. But when he was challenged by Sen. Kit Bond, the ranking Republican on the committee, he acknowledged he had not been briefed on the program.

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.

"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.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I guess if you take his words at face value then you don't have to worry about what previously was said by Obama about keeping rendition legal. These words at face value would mean that the practiced of torture in the Obama administration would be over.

Can we leave the issue to rest now until it becomes a controversy please?

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I'm still trying to figure out how Panetta is qualified to head up the CIA?? That nomination makes no sense to me.

Originally posted by skeptic1
I'm still trying to figure out how Panetta is qualified to head up the CIA??

He disagrees with Bush administration policies and is a career bureaucrat who's sympathetic to, and will tow, the Obama line. No qualification needed.

Panetta said the U.S. government had sent detainees to other countries to be tortured. But when he was challenged by Sen. Kit Bond, the ranking Republican on the committee, he acknowledged he had not been briefed on the program.

Nice.

[edit on 5-2-2009 by WestPoint23]

reply to post by WestPoint23


Makes perfect sense now.

Just like everything else that our government does.

I'm not 100% sure of his ties to Washington but I believe his time in the Clinton Administration as Chief of Staff was a reason. I'm not certain what he did to get the spot, most of the appointments have been pathetic at best thus far.

Ya and the CIA is very well known for what? Lying

I wouldnt believe one word he said, but also I believe this was a cover for something way deeper and more secret.

What is the secret? Well I havent exactly been briefed on it yet either, so I wouldnt know what it is. Hence the word "secret".

"I'd shun controversial interrogation techniques"

I can only assume that this means "in favour of interrogation techniques that nobody has heard of". He doesn't say he shuns actual torture.