What was Pelosi supposed to do after she was briefed in 2002?

[jsamuel]

The thing out there now is that Pelosi was briefed in 2002 about "enhanced interrogation methods". She says that they did not tell her that it had been done or that it was going to be done. Now, the response from some is "why didn't she do something about it?" Lets look at her options:

1. Speak about it in public (she would be arrested and thrown in jail). (plus as far as she was concerned no war crimes were being committed because they hadn't been implemented)
2. Try to pass a bill in congress to "DOUBLE" ban torture? It was already illegal.
3. Report it to the Bush justice department that approved of the plan.
4. Try to get a Democratic President elected to change the policy.

What are you saying she should have done? And remember, until 2007, she was the House MINORITY Leader.

[emulatorloo]

1. See this thread: "CIA (Letter) Admits That Info About Torture Briefings For Dems May Not Be Accurate

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3868046&mesg_id=3868046

I smell the Cheney crew behind this mess.

[jsamuel]

4. yeah, it is fishy

[emulatorloo]

32. "Cheney Sleeper Cells" = didn't Seymour Hersh report something about that?

EOM

[L. Coyote]

134. Anyone who thinks BUSH told Pelosi the truth, while LYING, LYING, LYING, is an idiot!

HELLO WORLD. 2 + 2 = 4. BUSH LIED to everyone, including Congress!!

[roguevalley]

150. personally, I would have told. Jail or no, I would have told and since

she is in the 'class' of people who never pay a day for what they do, I would have done it without a thought. Some things carry such a moral imperative that you personally are incidental to the moment. She makes me puke anyway. "IMPEACHMENT IS OFF THE FUCKING TABLE!"

[bdamomma]

171. of course, the repigs are targeting her, I don't hear much talk

about those repigs who were briefed also.

[Fovea]

2. That would be Number One.

And the whole freaking house of cards would have fallen and the moral authority of the US would not be a thing, spoken about in the past tense.

That is what we expect of leaders.
If the allegation is true, it represents a failure to uphold the oath to defend the constitution.

[jsamuel]

8. You realize that over 50% of the American public supports torture NOW, let alone what they suppored

in 2002 after 9/11.

[atreides1]

27. Great Isn't It???

50% of the American public supports torture NOW, how many think that slavery is a good thing, or that interracial couples should be jailed?

America land of the morally bankrupt, closet Nazi, and torture advocates.

So, why did WWII matter? We should have let the Nazis win they would have made sure that those 50% would have gotten their wish.

If what you claim is true, then 50% of the American public are a f***ing waste of space!!!

[jsamuel]

29. amazingly, yes

here is a link:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/06/bush.torture/

But half the public approves of the Bush administration's decision to use of those techniques during the questioning of suspected terrorists, with 50 percent in approval and 46 percent opposed.

Updated May 6th 2009

Just think of what the approval numbers would have been in 2002.

[Fovea]

45. How is that germane to the third Geneva convention?

I don't think we get to vote on it provision by provision.

[Political Heretic]

91. 50% support it now because no on stood up against it, its been normalized

..and even if that's not true, who gives a damn? If 50% of America one day supports rape (NOT actually out of the question given that once upon a time it was considered simply ABSURD that American people would ever support torture) it would STILL be wrong.

[magellan]

101. They also support it because they think the "terrorists" deserve it

It needs to be made plain to America that terrorists were in the MINORITY of those who were tortured.

Who in our government has the balls to do that, I don't know.

[bahrbearian]

120. Back when she was being briefed nobody in those numbers thought that.

She helped make us complicent. Now its OK ?

[L. Coyote]

135. Bull Shit, and you know it!

And 75% support murder, right? :rofl:

[Bonn1997]

156. Huh? I looked it up and it does seem to be

a slightly higher percentage in favor of than against "torture of suspected terrorists" in poll after poll

[L. Coyote]

165. Links?

[Bonn1997]

168. Go to pollingreport.com You'll find all sorts of polls on just about any topic including torture

[L. Coyote]

170. Links to back up your statement??

I know there are polls online. Where is there something to support what YOU claim?

[roguevalley]

151. so, fuck em. some things you die for and this is one of them. if you

can't fucking lead, get out of the way.

[Captain Hilts]

3. Folks really don't 'get' this point. They don't understand the responsibility of knowing...

secure information, or whatever.

[MrMickeysMom]

34. I believe folks DO get the responsibility of "knowing"...

... What I DON'T get is the "whatever"... attitude afterward.

You must have the attitude that "it's a long season". When the House minority became the House majority leader... it was, like..... WHAT-EVER.

Yeah, I didn't get what happened after she could have done something about it... and still DON'T.

[Captain Hilts]

37. One person does not have the right to declassify information. It's that simple. nt

[MrMickeysMom]

39. Well, that's true, but it's not what I refer to...

...when I question her "whatever" attitude after the fact.

Just because it's classified, doesn't mean leadership with a conscience wouldn't later equate that with breaking the law. Impeachment therefore would be "on the table", unless that kind of thing isn't important to you.

[Captain Hilts]

40. I understand you now. Thanks. nt

[MrMickeysMom]

44. No problemo, Captain!

It's one of those Fridays where I have strong opinions anyway.

[roguevalley]

153. even when its criminal? What about the camps bush was supposed to

have made? What if the briefing was about that? She has a moral responsibility as a leader to SPEAK.

[roguevalley]

152. if they had told her that they were putting people into camps and

that it was secret, what then? She had a responsibility to LEAD and that does not include not stepping up against injustice and unlawfulness. She let us down and that coupled with no impeachment makes her slime in my view.

[BulletproofLandshark]

5. In her shoes, I'd like to think I'd speak out.

I would rather sit in a cell with a clear conscience than be free knowing that war crimes were committed and I said nothing.

[Raskolnik]

6. Here's a suggestion: DON'T LIE ABOUT WHAT YOU KNOW IS GOING ON

If you know there are illegal acts occurring, but for whatever reason you cannot put an end to those illegal acts (lack of spine, craven political ambition, venality, etc) at least have the decency to not lie to the American public and pretend that the acts were occuring without your tacit approval.

[hobbit709]

7. Number 1.

War crimes is war crimes.
Keep your mouth shut and go along is complicity.

[LakeSamish706]

9. What she should have done is not taken Impeachment off the table....

If there were no legal scholars that she could have consulted with, she should have (after the fact) Impeached there asses.

[Mz Pip]

10. She needs to be out in front

of this and start explaining clearly what went on. There is entirely too much speculation and ifs about what she knew, when she knew it, and what she could have done about it.

[BR_Parkway]

11. Entered it into the Congressional Record (ala Pentagon Papers)

she can't be arrested for that - she could even read them on the floor. She could have thrown every procedural hurdle into the mix until they stopped. She could have done everything possible to block financing for W's war of choice.

And yes, why not introduce legislation that declared specific events are torture, since the White House DOJ had already written their way around the existing laws - the discussion would have been an eye opener.

Sorry, I don't buy that she (or any of the rest) could have done nothing - others in Congress would have done more to try to stop it - she was looking out for herself, not the American public.

[jsamuel]

12. If you remember, they DID try to do that, but McCain backed out and they took it out of the bill.

"And yes, why not introduce legislation that declared specific events are torture, since the White House DOJ had already written their way around the existing laws - the discussion would have been an eye opener."

[Supersedeas]

167. the winding road that is John McCain -- his silence since the release of the memo is precious...no?

A profile in courage??? Power corrupts even courage, I guess.

[Luminous Animal]

33. Exactly.

She could have exercised her duty to uphold the Constitution by using provisions in the Constitution itself.

[noamnety]

72. Bingo.

There's an established way to do this.

She is no better than anyone else who was complicit.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

125. That was my first thought when I read the question.

[roguevalley]

154. agreed, BR_Parkway

[lamp_shade]

13. Thank you for this well-thought-out post. n/t

[JonLP24]

14. Well if she was told then she shouldn't of said she was never "let me repeat"

never told. That makes her look even worse then knowing and not doing anything.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. There's a lot she could have done.

1. Asked a helluva lot more questions and demanded answers.
2. Resigned as Speaker of the House in protest to what she had learned without saying what it was only that it was criminal.
3. "Leaked" it to the press anonymously.
4. Challenged the Executive Branch's right to keep secrets from legislative branch.

- or -

Do what she's doing now and try to cover her sorry ass by using the "good German" defense of "I didn't know"...even though it was, and is, obvious that she did know and did nothing.

[jsamuel]

18. Hmm

1. Ok, but we don't really know if that one occurred or not
2. Hard to resign as the Speaker of the House when you aren't the Speaker of the House.
3. Who said she didn't, where did we get all the leaks from telling us torture was happening? Seymour Hersh might have been talking to her.
4. They weren't keeping it secret by telling her, that is why they told her.

[NNN0LHI]

50. # 2 is really good

:rofl:

[Mojorabbit]

35. and she should have put impeachment on the table. nt

[EFerrari]

46. There were already reports of abuse and torture in the Arab press

and, iirc, in the British press. The Red Cross was already writing letters to Bremmer.

How hard would it have been to bring that information to the House?

[mikelgb]

16. Impeach.

Put her account of the event in the text of the resolution.

No proof or evidence that she would be arrested and thrown in jail.

[Inuca]

17. There is a difference between

being a criminal and not wanting to be a martyr, some people forget or ignore it. Pelosi and a few others may not have covered themselves in ever lasting glory over this, but equating what they did (or did not do) with what the authors of all this moral quagmire did is ridiculous and rather infantile.

[roguevalley]

155. evil cannot continue without the silence of others. she is evil and if

she knew and this happened with her knowing about it and doing nothing that makes it worse for me. She claims to be my party's leader and she did this in my name. F her if that is true.

[tritsofme]

19. Remember Pentagon Papers? A congressman or senator, can read anything into the Congressional record.

without fear of reprisal.

She could have even demanded that the House go into closed session, so that classified info didn't get into the public record.

Saying she couldn't do anything is a cop out.

[jsamuel]

20. Now that is a good point.

Do we know that she didn't do this? I guess we wouldn't if it was a closed session. I do remember congress having some closed sessions during that time period. But I still think it is unlikely that she did that.

[Captain Hilts]

41. Intelligence information has its own rules. nt

[tritsofme]

77. No it doesn't. You simply cannot punish a member of Congress for reading something into the record.

They are protected by the Constitution.

Article I, Section 6:
"for any Speech or Debate in either House, (a Senator or Representative) shall not be questioned in any other Place"

Nothing was more "top secret" than the Pentagon Papers.

If I'm wrong, I'd like to see how they got around the Constitution.

Might that member of Congress subsequently lose his security clearance? Perhaps, its just a question of what is more important, power or justice.

[Captain Hilts]

92. Yes, it does have special restrictions. Individuals are not permitted to decide to reveal

secure information.

[tritsofme]

95. The executive branch can maintain that the information is restricted.

But it cannot stop a member of Congress, a co-equal branch government, from speaking freely on the floor.

Members of Congress enjoy special privileges in regard to matters such as these, relative to regular citizens, or even other government employees that are authorized to access such information.

The Constitution makes it clear, that their speech in Congress, "shall not be questioned in any other Place"

As I said, the executive branch may retaliate by revoking security clearances, or by attempting to throw out road blocks.

Other members of that chamber may decide that the disclosure was even serious enough to warrant expulsion.

But the member of Congress would never be indicted for any crime.

And unless you can show me differently, you have been running around this board all day blowing smoke from where the sun don't shine.

[Crabby Appleton]

21. none of the above - she didn't do anything because she agreed

with the use of use of enhanced interrogation methods.

[Skinner]

22. I think this argument is pretty weak.

What, exactly, is the point of briefing congressional leaders if they have no power to do anything?

I am no lawyer. And I do not know what options are at the disposal of congressional leaders who are briefed on stuff like this. But the fact that members of Congress are briefed on this stuff implies that they have some power and some responsibility for oversight.

[jsamuel]

24. Well, it does imply that, but as you state, you don't really know.

Neither do I, but many people here are assuming that she could have done something without having any idea of what she could have done. I think we need more information about this before we throw her off the bus.

[Skinner]

26. I'd be the last person to throw any of our congressional leadership off the bus.

But, yes, I am assuming that she could have done something without having any idea of what she could have done. At least, I'm assuming she could have tried to do something. And I don't think it is a far-fetched assumption.

[jsamuel]

28. No, not at all far-fetched.

But there again, we don't know if she did try to do something. Now, I know you are not throwing her off the bus and apologize as I did not mean to accuse you personally of doing that. I was talking about people in general who were already predisposed to disliking Pelosi. My goal in this point is to emphasize that we need to wait and see before passing judgment.

[Skinner]

30. Fair enough.

FWIW, I didn't think you were accusing me of throwing Pelosi off the bus.

[EFerrari]

48. Oversight without the power (or will) to intervene is not oversight.

We don't know if she tried to do something but we know that she did not do anything. We also know there were reports of torture in the Arab press and in the foreign press. We know the ICRC was writing to Bremmer. We know that program continued for six years after she was briefed. We know about 100 people died as a result of their interrogations involving torture and more have been destroyed although they are still alive.

I guess I don't know what you are asking people to wait for. If Pelosi acted in good faith, her reaction should be one of dismay and disgust and she should be supporting an investigation publicly.

[jsamuel]

56. not arguing with you there

"If Pelosi acted in good faith, her reaction should be one of dismay and disgust and she should be supporting an investigation publicly."

[EFerrari]

59. What Pelosi did or didn't do comes down to means and ends.

It was very much her job to nurse what power Democrats had and to try to grow it. She did that very well.

In the meantime, she avoided confronting some of the most egregious attacks on the very fabric of our civil society, on our Constitution in our history. A lot of people died, a lot of people were ruined -- from the raped women prisoners at Abu Ghraib to people like Paul Minor who wasn't allowed to say good bye to his dying wife.

The Democrats are about to gain a significant majority. I guess to my mind, the cost vastly overshadows the victory and, in fact, it makes me ill when I think of all the victims of the Bush Administration that could have been saved had someone in power done even only what they could do.

[roguevalley]

157. she never will because she is culpable. she could face jail herself

and so this will never be more than a commission where we all tut-tut and say bad my and let it all fade away. she will not allow herself to get in trouble.

[Solly Mack]

68. Yes

"If Pelosi acted in good faith, her reaction should be one of dismay and disgust and she should be supporting an investigation publicly."



and YES!

"Oversight without the power (or will) to intervene is not oversight."

If a President and his functionaries can come and tell you they plan to torture, regardless of how they dress it up, and you're bound by law not to reveal a President is committing , or plans to commit, war crimes...then our system has a built-in mechanism for government to freely break the law and commit atrocities.

And that puts the mock in our democracy.

Pelosi statement from 2007.

"On one occasion, in the fall of 2002, I was briefed on interrogation techniques the Administration was considering using in the future. The Administration advised that legal counsel for the both the CIA and the Department of Justice had concluded that the techniques were legal.
"I had no further briefings on the techniques. Several months later, my successor as Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman, was briefed more extensively and advised the techniques had in fact been employed. It was my understanding at that time that Congresswoman Harman filed a letter in early 2003 to the CIA to protest the use of such techniques, a protest with which I concurred."




Announcing as publicly as possible that the only oversight you do have is off the table doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Even if she never planned to attempt impeachment - she should have never said it wasn't an option - especially considering what EVERYONE knew at the time she said it. She said it in 2006 before the elections. This was years after she was briefed on what *might* be happening in the future (by her own admission) and years after reports were already coming out about the U.S. government's torture program - and years after Abu Ghraib and the murders by torture at Bagram.

What could she have done? Like Skinner, my assumption has always been that she should have tried to do something (anything) to try and stop it.

Even if it cost her politically. We're talking war crimes. Crimes against humanity. You can't just hope for the best in such a situation. You have to act.

As for the self-serving war of - he knew/she knew and they're just as guilty as we are, so let's not do anything about any of it - that's going on right now. It's diversionary bullshit.


Yeah, it does matter who knew what when and how much did they know - but getting to the truth so there can be accountability isn't the goal of the BS squabble going on right now in Congress. And it disgust me.

[EFerrari]

71. Yep, it's disgusting. And those of us following this issue who

work for justice can't allow ourselves to be hung up on the self-serving public statements of any politician. They have to be politicians and we have to keep working for justice.

[Solly Mack]

73. Yes

Frankly, I don't care who goes down - if they're guilty of aiding in, enabling of, accessory to, an accomplice to/of, and - of course - actively enagaged in, torture....let'em fall.

[roguevalley]

158. either side, anyone, all of them, go to jail.

[Buzz Clik]

23. Yep. Perfect summary. There is no other argument.

And, by the way -- this isn't new. The administration did their mandatory briefing of key Congressional committees about wire tapping, as well -- and told them if they spoke a word they would go to jail.

[Enrique]

25. protest privately

go on record as being opposed. I think Rockefeller did that with the warrantless wiretapping.

[jsamuel]

31. Yes, he did.

I heard about him writing a letter and locking it in his safe because that was all he could do. But this kind of underscores the point that there wasn't much Rockefeller could do either besides locking a letter in a safe.

[roguevalley]

159. actually, you can exercise true leadership and blow the lid off. that is

what he could do. he didn't because he wasn't prepared to sacrifice. Daniel Ellsburg, the others sacrificed and ended a war and exposed corruption. My senator Mike Gravel ended the Viet Nam war at the cost of his senate seat BECAUSE IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. It is called leadership and he had it in spades. Pelosi doesn't take a pee without a focus group. See the difference? :)

[NashVegas]

36. 1. Speak About It In Public and Risk Being Thrown In Jail

That's what true patriotism is all about. Sorry you and Nancy don't think the risks are worth it.

[EFerrari]

42. Or she could have leaked it like a real professional. n/t

[NashVegas]

43. *snort*

:)

[bottomtheweaver]

47. It's possible that she did.

One way or another, the story has been out there for awhile, in all its glory.

[EFerrari]

49. The story first came out of the Arab press and then it was picked up

by the foreign press. The information did not come from Pelosi's office.

[bottomtheweaver]

51. Abu Ghraib?

Yes that's probably so, though I was thinking of the CIA torture curriculum Jane Mayer and others have written about. I'm not saying Pelosi should be let off the hook, but even if she HAD leaked it to the NYT, LAT, or WaPo, there's no guarantee that they'd ever print it.

[EFerrari]

54. The reports of torture at Abu Ghraib started circulating almost immediately

among Iraqis. There were also abuses right on up to group murder that came out of Afghanistan.

Nobody wanted to look or to know or to deal with it.

Same with the round ups of hundreds of "muslim men" right after 9/11. Nobody wanted to look or to know or to deal with it. There was abuse and even torture right there in New York City long before there was any overseas.

Nancy Pelosi did not run our government by herself. But she stands in a big crowd of our elected officials that chose to look the other way.

[bottomtheweaver]

57. Okay. But that raises the question of which torture we're talking about,

the stuff supposedly done by "rogues" or the CIA stuff Bush, Cheney, Rice, Gonzo and Tenet have all by now openly admitted to? I was thinking of the latter because it looks like Abu Ghraib is a closed case, though of course it shouldn't be.

[EFerrari]

60. I don't see any evidence that "rogues" were responsible for torture

because it seems to be consistent in method across venues

You kidnap people, hide them for as long as you can and interrogate them any way you like. You try to make them afraid to trust anyone and then, if you are forced to release them, you make them sign an agreement not to talk in public. And you tape the whole thing.

[bottomtheweaver]

62. Yes, of course it was all the same program,

but so far the Bush administration hasn't admitted it, that I know of. Lyndie England went to prison and that was the end of the Abu Ghraib "bad apple" stuff. The CIA and Bush admin have, however, admitted to the waterboarding, and I believe that's what they're now trying to claim Pelosi had been briefed on, and that's what I'm saying it's possible Pelosi leaked info on to the journalists who wrote about it.

[EFerrari]

66. BushCo started torture almost immediately after 9/11.

The reason they talk about waterboarding is because that absolves them of about a year of illegal activity.

[bottomtheweaver]

67. What they did and what they briefed Pelosi on are two different things.

I'm not defending Pelosi who is compromised in all kinds of ways, but what I'm saying is what she *officially* knew was probably about a day ahead of what CNN was broadcasting, if that much. I imagine others were told more, but why would they share their dirty secrets with Pelosi, except to compromise her and protect themselves, as they're trying to do now?

So I guess my point is that what Pelosi did or didn't know is not exactly a central issue here.

[EFerrari]

69. That's right. The issue of what Pelosi knew is a red herring

mean to take heat off of the Torture Administration.

[truedelphi]

107. In terms of US Newspeople, Abu Gharib was first uncovered by Mary Mapes, who

Was the lead person at "Sixty Minutes II" and Dan Rather was her boss.

They won a Peabody award for her putting together the story of the torture at Abu Gharib in Spring of 2005.

By then, Mapes had lost her position at CBS - she was fired. And Rather was forced into early retirement.

[JDPriestly]

38. She should have tried to slip a limitation on the funding for that

sort of program -- put a requirement into the budget that money could not be used for enhanced interrogation techniques.

[NNN0LHI]

53. Do you understand how the CIA is funded?

http://flavor8.com/index.php/2005/07/11/dissertation-on-cia-black-ops-funding/

Each year the US Department of Defense (DoD) lists a number of single line items in its budget that have a program number such as 0605236F, code names like CLASSIC WIZARD or vague description such as “special evaluation program,” that don’t refer to any weapons system known to the general public, Congressional officials or even defense analysts. These single line items are covers for the creation of a ‘black budget’ - a top secret slush fund set up by the DoD, with the approval of the US Congress, to apparently fund intelligence organizations such as the CIA as well as covert operations and classified weapons programs by the DoD. The ‘black budget’ allows intelligence activities, covert operations and classified weapons research to be conducted without Congressional oversight on the grounds that oversight would compromise the secrecy essential for the success of such ‘black programs’.

[JDPriestly]

88. Outrageous. I did not know this.

They could be spending the money on ice cream for their kids for all we know. What a waste.

This is especially appalling since we hear so much about the importance of "accountability" for teachers. I used to write and manage grants for a nonprofit that helped the homeless -- and the amount of accountability I had to demonstrate on tiny amounts of grant money compared to these slush funds for the DoD makes me pretty disgusted.

[bemildred]

89. Gotta have that "deniability".

All the more reason to outlaw this sort of chickanery.

[BuyingThyme]

52. She's supposed to defend the Constitution.

Nothing else.

[walldude]

63. Like in the oath she took.

Anyone who knew about this and didn't say or do anything should be hung out to dry. These people took an OATH to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. An OATH. Maybe they can look that word up.


The OP asks what should she have done? If her hands were tied and she had no recourse, she should have quit her job. She could have held a press conference and said that while she couldn't release classified information she was leaving because something immoral and illegal was going on and she refused to be a part of it. She had a lot of options but since they all involved her losing her POWER she decided to play along.

That is if this is all true.

[jsamuel]

55. interesting post a DailyKos dealing with this issue:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/8/729276/-What-the-Pelosi-Briefing-Claim-RevealsWe-need-a-Classified-Crimes-Act

[OHDEM]

58. Chris Matthews is talking about what she knew right now...

so their plan to pretend that possibly knowing they might break the law is worse than ACTUALLY breaking the law.

Stop being a tool, Chris!

[bridgit]

61. The Cheney admin had no intention of telling Dems all of what was going on...

The extent to which they did was two fold: because they had to, but in that process cynically deny Dem Party access to plausible deniability; which is being played to a 'T'

[Baby Snooks]

64. Well....

She could have called the Washington Post from a pay phone and arranged to meet a reporter in a parking garage...

[bottomtheweaver]

65. Maybe she did.

How would we know?

[OHDEM]

70. At that time, it was practically TREASON to even suggest..

that our President didn't walk on water. The GOP stirred everyone into a frenzy of fear and made it clear to the Dems that they would be called everything up and to Osama Bin Laden if they didn't do as they were told.

Just remember what they did to WAR HERO Max Cleland. 'Nough said.

[EFerrari]

74. And that's exactly when the American people need their leaders to stand up. n/t

[OHDEM]

75. Agreed. But the Dems have never been known for their...

...backbone. Plus the GOP has no qualms about outright lying and even attacking war veterans that lost limbs.

[EFerrari]

79. It's a mistake to say Democrats aren't known for their backbone.

It's just another version of "Democrats are weak on national security" or "Democrats won't keep you safe". We always do better under a Democratic administration.

There are people more interested in their career than anything else but that happens in any organization. Maybe even, in most organizations. It has nothing to do with being a Democrat, really, but more about being a politician in this country.

The corruption has finally flooded the works. We need to deal with that. It's not a Democratic problem but an American problem, imho.

[OHDEM]

81. I disagree.

I would never say Dems are weak on nat'l security, but IMO they don't have the stomach to do what the GOP does regularly - take on an issue and refuse to compromise. Of course as you say, this may be politics in this country. Clearly, it wouldn't benefit anyone for the Dems to commit political suicide - which going up against Bush at that time might have been for a great many.

I can't stand the GOP, but I admire their drive at times. If places were reversed right now, the WH would be pressuring Minnesota to seat the Senator they wanted, sins of the last Prez would be under official investigation, they'd nominate whatever right-wing USSC candidate they wanted with no apologies, etc.

[EFerrari]

83. Yep. Were Franken a Republican, he'd already be sworn in

and already attacking Obama. You got that right!

But, it's also true that Democrats aren't hooked into the borg mind like Republicans are. We could do so much better with respect to messaging but we also don't have all the zombie drones the Republicans do.

[OHDEM]

84. You're right. nt

[roguevalley]

160. and that is when you step up. That is when leadership is required.

when there is a situation like this, you step up.

[bemildred]

76. Stand up on the floor of the house and say "Bush is torturing people".

Which was both her right and her duty.

[OHDEM]

78. Anyone want to speculate on how long it would have taken...

...for the GOP to charge her with treason for that?

[bemildred]

85. So what?

She can say anything she likes on the floor of the House. She has and had immunity under the Constitution for ANYTHING she says on the floor of the House. She took an OATH to defend the Constitution.

[OHDEM]

86. Not true.

Pelosi gets classified information and she most certainly does not have immunity to say just anything. IF she knew they were torturing (BIG IF) then she is accountable AFTER those that implimented and carried out war crimes. Don't buy into the GOP trying to put this off on the Dems. If they told her and others anything, it was most likely for this very reason.

[bemildred]

87. Article I, Section 6:

"They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

Notice the semicolon. Only their own chamber can hold them accountable. Ms Pelosi has been Speaker of the House since 2007.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble

[OHDEM]

93. "except Treason"

I believe discussing classified information qualifies as treason.

[TwixVoy]

94. Actually no it doesn't

Read the consitution. Treason is DEFINED for you and it does not meet your definition.

Furthermore please learn to read the part the poster quoted. It is saying they can not be arrested while in congress. THEN IT GOES ON TO A SEPERATE PART saying essentially in modern english "furthermore anything said in congress can not be used to charge them with any crime"

[bemildred]

98. Exactly.

And that is done in order that they may fulfill their responsibility to debate and legislate about anything whatsoever, as the supreme legislative body in the government. Congress in session, on the floor of either house, can say anything they like without fear of anyone but the Congress itself.

[OHDEM]

99. I can read just fine - I disagree with what you think it means and...

whether or not it matters in this instance.

First off, you're both assuming that the administration in power in 2002 respected the rule of law, seperation of power and Constitution despite all evidence to the contrary. Remember - these are people that ignored our own laws and the Geneva Conventions to detain POWs illegally AND torture them. Not to mention that they outed a CIA agent because her husband questioned them and then had a scapegoat commit perjury to get off.

Second, thinking back to 2002, even questioning that President on his "War on Terror" was called "Giving comfort to our enemy" which is treason. Not that anyone was quilty of treason for questioning the government, but that admin and their press arm were certainly SAYING IT WAS. It was an intimidating time.

Further investigation into that part of the Constitution:

The last sentence of the Clause provides Members of Congress with two distinct privileges. Except in cases of "Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace," the Clause shields Members from arrest while attending or traveling to and from a session of their House. History reveals, and prior cases so hold, that this part of the Clause exempts Members from arrest in civil cases only. "When the Constitution was adopted, arrests in civil suits were still common in America. It is only to such arrests that the provision applies." Long v. Ansell, 293 U.S. 76, 83 (1934) (footnote omitted).

Since . . . the terms treason, felony and breach of the peace, as used in the constitutional provision relied upon, excepts from the operation of the privilege all criminal offenses, the conclusion results that the claim of privilege of exemption from arrest and sentence was without merit. . . .

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0408_0606_ZO.html

Interpreting the Constitution isn't always so simple.


I also came across this and wonder if it's a warning?

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/dojleaks.html

Again, I think it's important to remember what things were like right after 9/11 when public opinion was strongly behind Bush and his "War on Terror" and the GOP used it as a hammer on anyone who dared question them.

On edit...It looks like the above decision exempts the protects from activities not of a legislative nature. As I said, not simple.

[bemildred]

122. From your Cornell source, further down:

"But he points out that the last portion of § 6 affords Members of Congress another vital privilege they may not be questioned in any other place for any speech or debate in either House. The claim is not that, while one part of § 6 generally permits prosecutions for treason, felony, and breach of the peace, another part nevertheless broadly forbids them. Rather, his insistence is that the Speech or Debate Clause, at the very least, protects him from criminal or civil liability and from questioning elsewhere than in the Senate, with respect to the events occurring at the subcommittee hearing at which the Pentagon Papers were introduced into the public record. To us this claim is incontrovertible.

This is exactly what "both of us" are saying.

[The Magistrate]

127. What Is Particularly Cute About That Decision, My Friend

Is that it expressly makes liable to prosecution people who make public classified information revealed by a legislator in speech or debate on the floor. Had, say, then-Rep. Pelosi made the speech people seem to desire, any newspaper which printed it would be liable to prosecution. One is reminded irresistibly of the tree said to fall in the forest where there is no one to hear....

[YankmeCrankme]

137. I may be wrong, but I think an illegal act cannot be deemed a state secret.

So, speaking before congress about the US torturing detainees should be protected even if reported in public. So, if the US wasn't torturing, she's just making stuff up and can be reprimanded by the Congress, but if the US is torturing people they don't get a free pass by making the information classified.

[The Magistrate]

138. A State Secret, Sir, is What The State Says It Is

No such exception as you suggest exists in law.

[YankmeCrankme]

164. I don't think that is correct. Truth2Tell posted info on executive order 12356

defining classified material and the restrictions regarding the illegal classification of material. Torture, I feel, falls into that category.

[bemildred]

139. That is a cute decision, Sir.

I noticed what you mention ...

My own view is that Congress is as close as one gets to sovereign in this country, in the carrying out of it's legislative duties. It's not that I don't understand Ms Pelosi's actions, it's that I find her defense somewhat "pragmatic" rather than principled. I favor the Congress assuming its assigned role in these things.

[The Magistrate]

144. And Being Aware Of My Bent Towards The Pragmatic, My Friend

You will be unsurprised it does not distress me a professional politician imbibes the stuff.

It seems to me we are still at early days in the working out of this matter, and the political colorings of it cannot be disregarded. Prosecution of an administration by its successors, on however clear-cut a crime, is a major step, that will alter the political life of our country. It should be gone into with a clear head, open eyes, and a readiness to both strike out hard and duck quick....

[bemildred]

145. Yes Sir.

On the other hand, I see no advantage in shutting up about it. May we both get what we both want.

I will happily bash the heck out of anyone that attacks Obama for his lack of "progress" for example, or that threatens Ms Pelosi in favor of some Neanderthal bigot. But I see no reason to stop complaining, or deconstructing "explanations" for doing less than we might want. I don't have an axe to grind with Ms Pelosi, but I see no reason not to hold her feet to the fire either. That's what democracy is all about. They are our employees, so we might as well get good at telling them what we want.

[bemildred]

146. Have you seen this drivel Sir:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x447166

Apparently, we already doing post-mortems.

[The Magistrate]

147. No, Sir, It Had Escaped Me

And I will try not to hold it against you that you have called my attention to it....

Best wishes for a pleasant week-end, my friend!

[bemildred]

148. You too Sir.

Not a bad red herring, eh?

[The Magistrate]

149. Always Hated 'To Kill A Mockingbird', Sir....

[OHDEM]

128. I'm not a Constitution law expert...

and I'd wager that you're not either. Please don't take offense, I'm just saying that we're all playing amateur lawyer here. I'd also wager that most members of Congress aren't 100% clear on where their immunity lies with regard to classified information - even the ones that ARE lawyers!

The decision we've been discussing says there seems to be a contradiction in that the passage exempts their immunity for treason, felony and breach of the peace, but that they can't be questioned outside the senate. The opinion appears to be saying that indeed he's protected "against prosecutions that directly impinge upon or threaten the legislative process". That's not blanket immunity for any and all actions in the Congress as I read it.

Here is a more clear interpretation of the rulings regarding immunity:

Privilege From Arrest
This clause is practically obsolete. It applies only to arrests in civil suits, which were still common in this country at the time the Constitution was adopted.419 It does not apply to service of process in either civil420 or criminal cases.421 Nor does it apply to arrest in any criminal case. The phrase “treason, felony or breach of the peace” is interpreted to withdraw all criminal offenses from the operation of the privilege.422

http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-1/13-compensation-and-immunities.html

[bemildred]

141. It is a blanket immunity for speech in the exercise of their legislative duty.

Neither more nor less. I am not necessarily questioning Ms Pelosi's judgement, I'm questioning the allegation that she was legally accountable had she chosen to speak up about what she knew the Bushites were doing, or contemplating doing. I assume that the writers of the Constituion thought carefully, debated long, and wrote well.

[roguevalley]

161. and so we ignore evil because the fuckers might yell about it? Is that

the kind of leadership you want? If it is, we deserve the country we have.

[Fading Captain]

80. If you believe the policy was wrong, then don;t defend Pelosi

Please, try not to be partisan about everything. The world is bigger and more important than the political careers of corporate, power-hungry whores.

[OHDEM]

82. If you believe the policy was wrong,

then blame those that implimented and carried it out and don't buy into the tactic of trying to deflect it onto the other party. (Even if you don't like Pelosi.)

on edit : If Pelosi or any other Dem is responsible, they should go down, too, but this tactic from the right pisses me off.

[Fading Captain]

108. It's not a tactic from the right, it's holding our own party up to standards

We can't continually say we're for war, if we don't hold Democratic legislators accountable for giving authorization to war.

We can't continually say we're against torture, if we don't hold Democratic legislators accountable for authorizing torture.

We can't say we're for the working man and support unions, if we don't hold Democratic legislators accountable for free trade and other anti-worker policies.

If we don't hold them accountable, things will never improve. If we support people who don't represent us, then we deserve it when they fail us.

[OHDEM]

116. Anyone who broke the law should be held accountable...

starting with those that conspired to and endorsed torture.

I just think the GOP is trying to deflect from the fact that they committed war crimes by claiming the other party knew about it. I don't know what they knew and we should find out BUT FIRST we should prosecute the Bush Admin. If we don't, they'll get off for sure!

If you just start going after people like Pelosi for instance if she knew war crimes were being committed, it will end up being all about her and what the Dems knew instead of Bush and Company actually asking for legal documents to be written up to justify war crimes they intended to commit. AND DID COMMIT!

As far as the war, which I also felt was illegal, nothing is going to happen with that. It's just not. If your local reps voted for it, then campaign against them, but nothings going to happen legally.

For what it's worth, I don't believe the Democrats "authorized" torture and I question what they actually knew. It's worth investigating after (or in conjunction with) a complete investigation of the Bush Admin war crimes.

Holding the Democrats accountable is one thing. Letting the Bush Admin blame Pelosi for what they did maliciously, deliberatly and believing they were above the law, is just wrong.

[Fading Captain]

166. I agree. In no way, shape or form

do Pelosi's actions change my view of the Republicans on this issue. They were the main perps here.

[Political Heretic]

90. Whatever it takes. Including speaking out about it.

Plenty of people have faced fail to blow the whistle. If our leaders can't be trusted to act their conscience in the face of the unconscionable, we are doomed.

Anticipating responses: I'm aware "it hadn't been implemented yet." Number one, I don't trust Pelosi any farther than I can throw her. She's been a spineless snake as long as I can remember. But even if that is true, the mere laying of the framework to justify torture - implemented or not - is more than enough to require a decent leader to say "no, sir. not on my watch." Even if it means jail.

[Individualist]

96. Place the interests of the country above her self-interest.

[nadinbrzezinski]

97. two things

one she could have gone to the USSC

Two if you buy this crap... then the system is now broken beyond redeption. If this is the case, then Empire is fully in place and no use in even trying to fight it. In fact, mark my words, the two tier justice system is in place and you will see NO prosecution.

RIP US Republic, 1782-2000

[OHDEM]

100. Is there a process by which she would go to the USSC

as minority leader? I'm not sure.

Second, our system was most definately broken under Bush/Cheney because they showed no respect for the Constitution. The Congress was complicit to some extent and failed in their duty to hold the President in check, but at the time he was popular, we were at war and the American people were nervous after 9/11. That's not to say that it can't be restored and I think having a President that not only respects the Constitution, but KNOWS the law, has probably corrected the problem.

I'm really torn on Pelosi because she didn't have her current power at the time of this supposed disclosure. Plus, I believe this is nothing but the GOP trying to point fingers when it was their admin that planned and acted on torture knowing full well that they were breaking laws. Why are we so concentrated on Pelosi when Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Gonzales etc. actually approved and condoned torture and there is NO DOUBT that they knew about it!

[nadinbrzezinski]

111. Yeah there are ways that she could have gone to the USSC

after all these guys were violating US Law, see torture laws of 1997 iirc as well as the Conventions, in particular common article three of the Geneva Convention... they were committing a crime

This comes under that silly oath they took... they ALL took. Yes, it could have sent her to jail in the short term, and ruined her career. Sure, that is what leaders risk when they follow their hearts and do what is right.

And I am not torn about Pelosi. The true nature of your character comes in situations such as that one. You either follow your conscience (and your oath) or you don't. You don't get second bytes at the apple.

And yes I had the pleasure to have had to make decisions where stakes were very high in my life. And I believe standing up for what was right preserved my sense of ethics and morality. So I have little patience for those making excuses. In my view she failed. For the record, she wasn't the only one. That failure went all the way down from the highest levels of government, to the lowest levels of worker bees that obeyed those orders. Sadly, that is human nature, so perhaps laws and shit such as honor are an artificial construct.

Here is a quote of a riddle, try to figure it out.

"A king and a pauper are born with it. Nobody can take it away from you, but you can give it away with a single word."

If you figure that riddle you will know what the country lost by these actions by these so-called leaders. And I also have very little patience for those who try to make this political. Fine... if crimes were committed, by commission or omission, I don't care what letter is behind their names.

[OHDEM]

117. I don't know the answer.

Of course politics is political whether you like it or not. That's not to say that we should excuse "our" side and I have no strong feelings for Pelosi. I could take her or leave her. At any rate, I'm simply asking that we focus on the commission before the omission. (Or speculation of omission, at this point.)

This is typical a right-wing tactic = We didn't do anything, but the Democrats knew about that thing that we didn't do wrong.

I have a 2 and 5 year old and this is what they do when caught.

[nadinbrzezinski]

143. The answer is honor

and that is what we lost.

I have little patience for five year olds, and omission or commission are just as serious

By the way, if your kids ever enlist in the armed forces and become prisoners of war... what we did will come back to hunt them.

Here is a piece of trivia. Before Abu Ghraib Iraqi troops gladly surrendered and returned US POWs. After Abu Ghraib they don't surrender and we have had no prisoner return

This is the consequence of what they did. I have no patience. There is another military saying... applies here. Excuses are like assholes, everybody has one, and some smell more than others.

Crude, yes, but true.

[Kablooie]

102. I think she should have had a big steak dinner, gone home, and taken a warm soothing bath.

Oh, wait a minute ... you mean regarding the torture info?

My mistake.

[jgraz]

103. How about... PUT IMPEACHMENT ON THE TABLE

She may not have known in 2002, but she sure the fuck knew in 2006 when she refused to allow impeachment proceedings to go forward.

The idea that she sat in that interview, knowing what she knew, and said, "it's off the table," makes me want to puke.

[OHDEM]

106. I believe she knew they didn't have the votes.

I can't be sure, but that's my guess.

It's also possible that they were afraid if they went after it while Bush/Cheney were in office, they'd find a way to pardon themselves and/or witnesses against them. Poppy taught him that move!

[jgraz]

109. You can't pardon your way out of impeachment

Article II, Section 2:
The President ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.



Pelosi and the Dems just didn't have the will. They'll be remembered as collaborators.

[OHDEM]

112. You're kidding yourself if you think that's not exactly what...

...happened with Iran/Contra.

The right is trying to place the blame on someone else for (maybe) knowing their crimes were being commited. Even if true, why are we buying into right now rather than holding THEM accountable for WHAT THEY DID?

[jgraz]

123. Seriously, it's, like, written down and everything

If they had started impeachment proceedings against Reagan or Bush Sr, they couldn't have pardoned their way out of it. The only reason they got away with is is that, once again, the Dems were too timid to do what's right and defend the Constitution.

Personally, I HOPE someone starts investigating Democratic involvement. It's pretty clear that the senior Dems are complicit in hiding these crimes.

[OHDEM]

129. Huh?

Are you aware that Bush pardoned a possible witness against his own impeachment before the man was even convicted? He also pardoned 11 folks that were convicted of crimes with regard to Iran/Contra. He did pardon his way out of it with the help of other liars and criminals.

What a shame that you doubt the corruption of the Bush family while attacking Democrats for "crimes" that are most certainly NOT CLEAR at this point.

I have yet to see one Pelosi-hater prove she knew or covered up anything. If she did, it should be investigated, but I'm disapointed that so many aren't seeing this tactic for what it is.

[jgraz]

132. I've been more than patient, but you need to actually *read* posts before you respond.

No, really. Go back and actually *read* what I wrote.

Here, I'll help you out:

If they had started impeachment proceedings against Reagan or Bush Sr,

Now, OHDEM, this is a key clause. Do you understand the conditional nature of the statement? *IF* they had started impeachment proceedings? Now think: did the Democrats *actually* start impeachment proceedings against either Bush Sr or Reagan?


...they couldn't have pardoned their way out of it.

Now, I realize the "it" is all the way at the end of the sentence, so it might be hard to remember the antecedent. In this case, "it" refers to the (alas, nonexistent) impeachment proceedings that Democrats might have started against Bush & Reagan.

What "it" does *not* refer to is any criminal proceedings that may or may not have resulted from the Iran/Contra scandal. See, (and this is an important point), it was impossible for Daddy Bush to pardon his way out of impeachment proceedings because .. wait for it ... THERE WERE NO IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM.

Now, if you're still having trouble understanding what I'm saying, have your mom explain it to you. It's probably time for you to get off her computer anyway.

[OHDEM]

133. You're condescending because you can't back up the right-wing...

talking points you spew. I'm probably older than you and certainly smarter since I'm not distracted by the shiny object the GOP tossed at us to keep us from seeing their crimes.

If you believe that possible knowing about torture (which not one of you has backed up) is worse than condoning and approving torture, then you're worse than the Republicans.

[jgraz]

136. I'll let my posts speak for themselves

Those with reading comprehension above a third-grade level can make their own conclusions about who's "certainly smarter".

[rucky]

104. Abu Gharib n/t

[truedelphi]

105. I am not a big fan of Pelosi - but I hear you and agree.

Everything you say is exactly what the story was.

She was not theacting President. These were not *her* plans, they were C heney and George W's plans.

I have no idea what she could have done, other than speak out and get arrested.

But you don't speak out about something you are being told is not being done!

[leftofthedial]

110. just what she did...

give bush everything he asked for, and more.

block any attempts at investigation.


Apparently.

[ControlledDemolition]

113. By 'briefed' do you mean an 'enhanced briefing'? n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

114. She was supposed to speak up for those individuals who were not as strong, nor as well protected as

she was.

Her silence resulted in the deaths of "ALLEGED" terrorists. HER SILENCE RESULTED IN THE DEATHS OF PEOPLE WHO HAD NEITHER BEEN FORMALLY CHARGED WITH, NOR CONVICED OF CRIMES.

She is no defender of the Constitution of the United States. She's a defender of one thing, and one thing only: HER OWN SEAT. She had her sights set on becoming Speaker of the House of Representatives. She won, and I hope that in the end, when she's judged, I hope those people she threw under the bus to further her own career have a say in how she spends the rest of eternity. Truth is, she's going to live a life that none of us will ever understand, and our understanding of why she's in her position is her LAST worry.

Her SILENCE resulted in the deaths of people whose guilt or innocence hadn't been decided yet.

Shall we agree that George W. Bush is a MURDERER? If we go there, then shouldn't we go further and uncover those people who were complicit in his bad acts? Her included?

[OHDEM]

115. Sure, but we haven't really gone THERE yet,...

and the GOP is hoping we'll be distracted by this crap. (Maybe some Dems hope it will die, too.)

That's why we need to work on getting the war criminals first then get enablers etc.

[cherokeeprogressive]

118. That is so fucking wrong. Get them all at the same time lest some of them run to

South America like the Nazis did.

EVERYONE WHO IS COMPLICIT IN WAR CRIMES NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE AT THIS MOMENT. Everyone who facilitated those crimes (EVERY CongressCritter who's over the age of 50) is just as culpible. It's called CONSPIRACY, and it's just as serious as pushing the knife in.

Nancy Pelosi participated in the torture and death of people who had been convicted of nothing. She participated by her silence.

Prosecute GWB for his crimes. But don't, don't EVER excuse the crimes WE'VE committed with our complicity.

[OHDEM]

119. I'm sorry, but you're WAY over the top.

Nancy Pelosi isn't a Nazi. She's a married mother and member of Congress - she's not a gangster or outlaw. Acting like she is going to run off to South America and have to be hunted down is tinfoil hat stuff. Get a grip! I don't particularly love or hate Pelosi and I think she made a mistake saying impeachment was off the table, but I've explained why I believe she did that. I can see that there is a lot of anger towards her at DU, but we need to keep our heads.

I understand being outraged. I've felt that way since the 2000 election and it's only gotten worse. I knew GWB would be an awful President, but I never could have imagined the things he and his administation did in my wildest nightmares. But being extreme damages our credibility.

We don't know what Pelosi knew, when she knew it or how much she understood about what the Bush Admin meant by "Enhanced Interrogation". We DO KNOW that that administration deliberatly set about war crimes and even used their legal dept to pre-justify it. Now if I were I member of Congress, I would assume (at least at first) that the POTUS would respect international and US law. It's not far-fetched to think that Pelosi believed they wouldn't cross that line. Honestly, who would have thought any President would go this far?

I believe members of the Bush Admin are quilty of war crimes. At worst, Pelosi and others *might* be quilty of keeping quiet and if they knew, not performing their duty in Congress. Even now, how much of what they know or what went down is classified?

I really believe that the Republicans are playing the media and many Democrats like a fiddle right now. Instead of talking about what Bush and his cronies authorized, we're talking about what 1 Democrat knew about their crimes.

[roguevalley]

162. agreed 100%. she isn't a fucking bystander. she is there to LEAD.

i wonder why people don't expect her to do what is right when it comes up. If they talked about torture she can't say she didn't expect them to do it because they were criminals and even I, sitting in alaska with a computer and a modem knew that. She has no excuse.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

121. "Classified" is the last refuge of the scoundrel

The book The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence opened my eyes in the late 1970s.

The author, a former CIA agent, maintained that the purpose of "classifying" information was to keep it from the American public, not to keep it from our then-enemies, the Soviets, because they had already infiltrated us and we them, not to keep it from the people affected (Vietnamese, etc.), because they already knew what was going on, but to keep it from the American public, who might not approve what the CIA and military cowboys were doing in their name.

[yodoobo]

124. She is 3rd in line to the Presidency. She is not powerless

What should she have done?

A: The right thing.

[OHDEM]

131. What exactly did she know and what was the right thing?

And why are we talking about what Pelosi KNEW rather than Bush and cronies DID?

Oh right, because we're a bunch of suckers!

[roguevalley]

163. we can do two things at once and given that she was supposed to

be leading the OPPOSITION and did NOTHING, she is included in this tri-fuckta.

[SoCalDem]

126. 5. Vote AGAINST every lame-ass bill Bush & his pals proposed

and when called out for being "obstructionist", just say "Hell YES, I'm abstructionist when the president wants me to break the law alongside him"...and then lay out the illegality he wanted dems to participate in....but many of "our folks" still wanted their pictures taken in the Rose Garden, and to be seen as "being patriotic".:puke:...no... they want us to believe that "they didn't know"... Well, How did WE know? How did millions of people who took to the streets..all over the world, know? (regarding the war)..

Saying they did not know, reminds me of that deer-in-the-headlights moment that Condi had, when she said "who could have imagined people would fly planes into buildings?".. Millions of people who go to the movies, for starters..and even the Bush whitehouse when they parked his ass on a ship , in Genoa..months before 9/11

Politicians want it both ways, and they expect us all to allow them to have it that way..

[dbt]

130. Stand up for the truth?

Or kowtow to her corporate benefactors?

Grow a backbone, perhaps?

Quit being an utter waste of oxygen?

[LWolf]

140. Speak up.

And, of course, she could have made better choices after November '06, too.

She could have moved impeachment forward, instead of declaring it "off the table."

[GeorgeGist]

142. After reviewing her interview with Rachel Maddow ...

I think the best can be said is that she is deficient in leadership skills. She didn't deny being briefed on torture techniques. But she clearly implied that she didn't ask questions.

[JDPriestly]

169. Here is what Congress did.

I stated in previous posts that Pelosi did not do what she could have done. I believe I was wrong. Here is the real story about what Congress including Pelosi who was, at that time a leading member of the powerless minority, did.

in 2005, the Democrats in Congress (with the help of some Republicans) passed a bill prohibiting torture once and for all. Bush signed a signing statement claiming he could violate that law (which he signed).

http://www.slate.com/id/2132572 /

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detainee_Treatment_Act

Here is the text of the bill that was passed.

TITLE X--MATTERS RELATING TO DETAINEES

. . . .

SEC. 1002. UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR THE INTERROGATION OF PERSONS UNDER THE DETENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

(a) In General- No person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.

. . . .

SEC. 1003. PROHIBITION ON CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.

(a) In General- No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

. . . .
(d) Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined- In this section, the term 'cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.

Bush signed a signing statement retaining the right to torture.

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | January 4, 2006

WASHINGTON -- When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.

After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.

''The executive branch shall construe in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote, adding that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/01/04/b ...

Congress, including Pelosi, did its job -- in 2005.

The only way to make it clear to future presidents that torture is illegal and the Bush signing statement does not make it legal is to prosecute George W. Bush.

[bdamomma]

172. wasn't Dennis Hastert the House majority Leader then?