The repubicans are dealing with nancy Pelosi with some of the same tactics they used on john Kerry.

[Stinky The Clown]

Long story short: Kerry and Bush both joined some military branch or other during the era of the Viet Nam war. One became a hero. One became a deserter. One got medals. One got his records "lost". Controversy ensured at a high decibel level. The two men were compared. Finally, the "conventional wisdom" was "They both served admirably, okay? Can we now move on?" And the furor died. And Bush won. And Kerry was, in popular culture, diminished.

Your head and mine were spinning in anger, disgust, and disbelief, but there it was. Our genuine war hero was successfully equated to a dim bulb scion-of-privilege, deserter, and shit bag.




The bushies did the torturing. They thought it up, they made up shit to mask its illegality, they ignored US law and international convention. They did it. MANY times over. They are war criminals. It really IS that simple. Now, late in the game, someone surfaces a very non conclusive CIA "memo", with no transcripts to back up a fucking thing, and accuse the Speaker of the House of being, essentially, equally complicit and on the same level as those who formulated the policy, gamed the system, and did the deeds.

The hoped for result: "See, they all did it. Can we move on?" Or some variation on that theme.




John Kerry IS a war hero and George Bush is an awol, amoral, sleazy, unreliable, self-centered buttwipe.

The bushies are WAR CRIMINALS and Nancy Pelosi is not. She is simply guilty of being where she can be accused of shit.



Those of you postulating what crimes she committed - that is exactly what the bushies WANT to happen. No crime need be found. No charges need be leveled. All they want is for all of us to throw our hands up in despair, curse them all, and move on.




What they do NOT want, is for our side to stalwartly press for criminal charges against the ACTUAL FUCKING PERPS.







edited to fix a series of typos - no substantive changes

[spanone]

1. knr

[frogcycle]

2. and it works because most people are idiots

[NNN0LHI]

4. +1

[karynnj]

21. It was also helped because Republicans and some independents

expect military heroes to be Republican, conservative and pro-war as a solution and John Kerry was none of these things. they had a choice - to believe the truth - Kerry was a very brave war hero and accept that it was possible to be both a war hero and a MA liberal. (this did not mean they had to vote for him.) The Republican attacks gave them an out - it was a fraud he really wasn't a hero and their stereotypes could be retained.

The fact was the Republicans would have been overjoyed with a conservative candidate with Kerry's service record and his work against BCCI, where he actually was one of the people, with Morgenthau, who deserves credit for unraveling the web of this bank, with terrorist connections, that had tentacles in the US and was facilitating laundering of terrorist and drug running money. Then throw in that he was a very capable pilot, hunter and motorcyclist. Then add in that he is 6 foot 4 and "looks like a President should" (None of those latter things are at all important to being a President, but they are important to the image presented.)

That is likely why they made the concerted attack on his service - not on his amazing Senate testimony.

[blm]

44. it works because the fascists bought control of broadcast newsmedia in the 80s and 90s.

.

[ControlledDemolition]

50. The MSM has been in cahoots before 11/22/63! n/t

[msongs]

3. let's ask President Kerry how the dems handled that one. nt

[The Magistrate]

5. And Many On The Left, Sir, Are Falling For It Hook, Line And Sinker

"Can't nobody here play this game?"

[dgibby]

15. I was just about to say the same thing.

[OregonBlue]

6. How will the administration deal with the CIA leaking memos?

[etherealtruth]

7. Look around here ...

Sadly, this is the one area that Bush , Cheney and the evil cabal excelled in; they are masters of spin. They orchestrate and carry out torture and the focus is on Pelosi (a person that may or may not have known anything).

[Lerkfish]

8. my POV is, even IF pelosi knew they were committing war crimes, that does not diminsh the crimes

nor excuse the criminals.

this is the most bizarre mechanism I've ever seen....


Mom: Jimmy, did you break my prize vase?
Jimmy: well, yeah, but Tommy saw me do it and didn't tell on me!
Mom: Tommy, its time to punish you for not telling on your brother.
Tommy: but what about Jimmy? He broke the vase?
Mom: that was in the past, its time to move on.

[The Magistrate]

18. Well Said, Mr. Lerkfish

[karynnj]

22. lol - exactly

[walldude]

23. I keep seeing this broken vase comparison

But I can't find a single person who doesn't want to punish Bush and his administration(the kid who broke the vase) What I see is people wanting to nail the people who did it and the people who covered it up.

THe Republicans tried this excuse because they think we all think like them, they think that this is a partisan issue. It's not. Anyone involved needs to be nailed to the wall. That includes Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, Greens, anyone in any party.

[The Magistrate]

26. No One, Sir, Who Did Not Break The Vase Is Involved In Breaking The Vase

If you want prosecution of the actual criminals, keep the focus tight on them, and on them alone.

[walldude]

27. So the people who covered it up, the people who allowed this

should just be allowed to walk away? These are the kinds of people we want representing us? Sorry friend not me. I say anyone directly involved needs to go to jail, from the higher ups to the people who were "just following orders" and anyone who knew about this but let it go on should be removed from office.

[The Magistrate]

28. Criminal Culpability Is What It Is, Sir

If you want prosecution of the actual criminals, the persons who planned and ordered the torture of prisoners, then you have to keep the focus of outrage tightly on those particular people.

Your phrase 'let it go one' implies that persons, in this instance, the Democrats in the House and Senate, had the power to stop this. They had neither legal power to do so, nor sufficient political power to do so.

[walldude]

30. So that makes it ok? Because they didn't have the political power to stop it?

We aren't talking about passing a bill here we are talking about torture. Sorry, I don't want someone representing me who puts their position, their power and their bank account above their humanity. Sorry, if I found out the company I was working for was torturing people the very least I would have done was quit my job. Pelosi and whoever else knew what was going on had more options than that. You say they couldn't do anything? I call bullshit. There was plenty they could have done. THey just didn't want to deal with the consequences of those actions.

[The Magistrate]

31. This Is Become Silly, Sir

You cannot accuse people of allowing something to continue unless you establish they possessed the power to stop it. It is probably true they could have done something loud that would have had the result increasing Republican majorities in '04 elections, but it is hard to see any good coming of that....

[walldude]

32. The only thing that is silly here is the idea that you want representatives

who sit back and watch something inhuman and illegal and just keep their mouth shut about it because it is politically expedient. Sorry, I like my representatives to have a bit of humanity left in them. I can't even fathom the mind of a person who could sit in a meeting and listen to these things without standing up for what is right. I say nail em' all, prison for those involved and walking papers for those who let it happen.

[The Magistrate]

33. What Is Silly Here, Sir, Is Maintaining Criminal Liability Extends Beyond Persons Who Commit Crimes

To expect professional politicians to ignore political expediency is to expect a lion to settle down to hearty meal of Wheat Chex....

"God grant me the ability to change what I can, the inability to refrain from trying to change what I can't, and the incapacity to tell the difference."

[Usrename]

37. The problem with your argument is that she IS committing a crime.

Now.

Today.

A crime is in progress and she is a participant.

The Convention Against Torture and the Nuremberg Principle make her into a criminal when she REFUSES to do her duty and comply with her legal obligations.

Reliable claims of torture have been established.

She is required by law to take action.

She is refusing to take action.

This refusal is a separate crime, in and of itself.

At the VERY LEAST she should initiate impeachment proceedings against Judge Bybee.

But there is more, much more that she is obligated to do, both legally and morally.

[The Magistrate]

38. Nonesense, Sir

The Speaker if the House bears no responsibility for criminal prosecutions.

You might find the comments here useful, Sir....

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/25/nowak/index.html?source=rss

[Usrename]

53. Did you even read the article that you are referring to?

First, Pelosi is the ONLY person who can initiate impeachment against Bybee. She controls the agenda in the House.

Correct?

Second, from the article you refer to:

MN: First of all, it's true that not every investigation into an allegation of torture must be a criminal investigation. If you look at Article 13 of the Convention, it's much broader. What is important is that every single credible allegation of torture, be it now by a victim, be it by other sources, must be investigated by a competent authority, and I would think that there is a enough evidence about torture practices under the time of the Bush administration that would warrant an independent, comprehensive investigation, not only about the legal memos, and the legal authorization, but about the actual practice. Who was tortured by whom, with what methods, etc. That should be first investigated. It does not have to be a criminal investigation. On the basis of this evidence - it might be a congressional commission, it might be a special investigator, that's up to the United States - but what is important is there will be investigation. And as soon as the evidence is there, then of course it is, like with every other crime, it's a question what to deal, what to do, what methods to be taken.

It may be news to you, but Pelosi has the power and authority to act. Her refusal to exercise that power is a crime under the Convention.

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Article 12

Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction.


http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm

Being that she is the ONLY person that has the power to do certain things, like initiate impeachment or establish an ad hoc investigatory committee, she has a DUTY, both morally and legally, to use her authority to go after these criminals.

The Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 authorized the Speaker to create ad hoc committees to consider measures or matters that fall within the jurisdiction of several standing committees. The Committee Reform Amendments also required that such ad hoc committees include members of the appropriate standing committees. Four ad hoc select committees have been created since 1974: the Ad Hoc Select Committee on the Outer Continental Shelf, the Ad Hoc Select Committee on Energy, the Select Committee on Homeland Security, and the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina.

http://wikileaks.org/leak/crs/RS21243.pdf

All she has to do is call for a vote and then she has fulfilled her duty. She is on the WRONG SIDE of this issue, and she will continue to be until she takes appropriate actions.

Her continued failure to positive steps is a crime. There is no doubt about it. Her conduct is becoming criminal and at some point, if she continues to obstruct, she should be charged along with all the others.

[SOS]

42. Accessories are criminally liable, even if they did not participate in the crime

A child breaking a vase is not a crime, thus the analogy is pointless.
Torture, rape and murder are crimes and accessories to these crimes are charged every day.

"To be convicted of an accessory charge, the accused must generally be proved to have had actual knowledge that a crime was going to be, or had been, committed. Furthermore, there must be proof that the accessory knew that his or her action, or inaction, was helping the criminals commit the crime, or evade detection, or escape."

[creeksneakers2]

48. Legally, one has to take an action that furthers the crime

to be criminally liable. Just knowing about a crime and not turning someone in isn't a crime. I know they sell crack on street corners in Philadelphia. Should I be arrested if I don't call the police once a day about it?

[Usrename]

54. In the Speaker's case, her obligations under the law are different.

As a competent authority, she is obligated to take affirmative steps under the Convention Against Torture. It is a legal requirement, in addition to the obvious moral requirement. See the preceding response to The Magistrate.

[spanone]

10. my question...how are they doing this 'OUT OF POWER?'

they supposedly no longer control the 'news cycle' or the 'spin'

who is the mastermind behind this? rove? cheney? the rnc?

[Stinky The Clown]

11. It is above their pay grade

[Name removed]

13. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bottomtheweaver]

14. They haven't been "out of power" since November 22, 1963.

We're the ones out of power.

[ControlledDemolition]

51. Bingo! n/t

[glitch]

9. same as it ever was - thanks for laying it out so clearly. K & R nt

[MagickMuffin]

12. Of course John Kerry IS a Hero, and he has the GOODS on the bushies from Poppy to Jr.

Unfortunately, Kerry NEVER got to see his investigation go anywhere, BCCI and Iran-Contra. If you remember he was also told to move along nothing to see here, let's move forward.
The same exact shit happened again under a "NEW and IMPROVED" Bush. Torture A-OK, looting the US Treasury A-OK, invading Iraq A-OK. I guess history will continue to repeat itself the next time a bushie makes it back into power as a sitting president, because we NEVER prosecute them for their crimes.

Remember Prescott Bush worked with the Nazis and became a Senator, then came his son Poppy and became a US Rep then VP then VP, and then came his son who became a Gov. and then had to steal an election to continue the family dynasty of War Crimes. Wasn't it convenient for Poppy to have two sons sitting as Governors so the election could be stolen.

When will we EVER learn.

Edit: typos

[karynnj]

25. Kerry actually did see his BCCI investigation until it had an effect

He went beyond what he could do as a Senator by taking what he had to Morgethau, who as NYC DA, could pursue it. That led to the bank being shut down. (Morgenthau incidentally testified this week before Kerry's committee on a case that shut down some illegal banking transfers by a British bank that allowed Iran to make forbidden transfers - http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2009/hrg090506a.html )

It was also likely only because of his committee's investigation on the Contras, that we know what we do. Elliot Abrahms was indicted for lying to Kerry. Kerry was excluded from the famous Iran/Contra hearing - and it was their granting immunity and Bush's pardons that closed this.

In support of your comment, had the senior Senators and Congressmen who showboated through Iran/Contra acted with Kerry's professionalism, a very junior Senator, not even half way through his first term, would have been the key person in the downfall of the President. As it was, he likely is the one most responsible for the Contra effort being exposed. (It is not just 1971 that makes the far right hate John Kerry.)

[MagickMuffin]

43. Justice WAS not Served, either in the BCCI scandal or the Iran-Contra scandal

that was the point I was trying to make, and there has been some indications that BCCI was still operating after it was shut down.

In 2002, Denis Robert and Ernest Backes, former number three of Clearstream, described as a "bank of banks" which practices "financial clearing", discovered that BCCI had continued to maintain its activities after its official closure, with "microfiches" of Clearstream's illegal unpublished accounts.

More here about Clearstream and how this bank has carried on the tradition of BCCI. This info shows how money is manipulated throughout the world. A lot of US banks used Clearstream to hide what they were doing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearstream

Thanks for the link. Here's the one from December '92 ............... http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/

:fistbump:

[lamp_shade]

16. Hersch: Cheney - "stay behinds"

This has disturbed me since the first time I read it:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/31/hersh-cheney-behind/

[sendero]

17. Hey guess what....

.... I want ALL OF THE MOTHER****ERS INVOLVED to be punished. If that includes some Dems, SO BE IT.

The vast majority of the culpability is on the Republican side, but clearly not all. ALL NEED TO FACE THE MUSIC.

[Andy823]

19. I agree.

If we don't go after everyone involved we will be just as bad as the republicans who are making excuses for Bush and his gang of criminals.

[karynnj]

20. Please do not equate this to Kerry and Bush

The fact is that the Bush people succeeded more than you suggest, where there are still some that question Kerry's completely unambiguous service record and have made Bush's less than stellar actions, deemed unimportant. They went beyond trying to equate their services as "honorable". They wanted to destroy John Kerry's, well earned good name.

The current Republican strawman is assigning equal guilt to those who knew but stayed silent (specifically those who are Democrats) and those who created the policy. That is the equation that we need to reject. There is a world of difference between those two groups - and, in that way it is a negative example of the positive example you gave where they were both said to have "honorable service".

Here, Pelosi is at the same level as Bush people, who did not have a role in deciding this policy, who knew of it and stayed silent, but nowhere near the culpability of the people who designed or signed off on the policy. This is the equation we have to fight and it was not helped when Peolsi tried to spin it as she didn't know that they actually were doing it. That sounds like spinning and it made her look worse.

[Uncle Joe]

24. Why would torture need to be top secret?

If the physical and psychological pain is so effective as to make anyone break, what difference did it make if Al Qaeda knew? I believe this illegal policy wasn't meant to keep Al Qaeda from knowing, so much as to prevent the Congress and the American People from effectively stopping this evil, immoral and illegal practice.

The previous administration and their allies in the CIA knew top secrecy was an effective way to neuter any real chance of over sight and effective objection by the people's representatives.

I also believe the motivation for the torture was to gather false testimony from the prisoners implicating Iraq to Al Qaeda as a means for justifying war with Iraq to benefit among other things, Cheney/Bush's ties to their oil/military industrial complex cronies. Form their statements and actions it was obvious Cheney/Bush wanted to attack Iraq within days after 9/11 in spite of overwhelming evidence that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html

"Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."

Congressional officials say the groups' ability to challenge the practices was hampered by strict rules of secrecy that prohibited them from being able to take notes or consult legal experts or members of their own staffs. And while various officials have described the briefings as detailed and graphic, it is unclear precisely what members were told about water-boarding and how it is conducted. Several officials familiar with the briefings also recalled that the meetings were marked by an atmosphere of deep concern about the possibility of an imminent terrorist attack.

<snip>

That decision reflected the White House's decision that the "enhanced interrogation" program would be treated as one of the nation's top secrets for fear of warning al-Qaeda members about what they might expect, said U.S. officials familiar with the decision. Critics have since said the administration's motivation was at least partly to hide from view an embarrassing practice that the CIA considered vital but outsiders would almost certainly condemn as abhorrent.

<snip>

Harman, who replaced Pelosi as the committee's top Democrat in January 2003, disclosed Friday that she filed a classified letter to the CIA in February of that year as an official protest about the interrogation program. Harman said she had been prevented from publicly discussing the letter or the CIA's program because of strict rules of secrecy.

"When you serve on intelligence committee you sign a second oath -- one of secrecy," she said. "I was briefed, but the information was closely held to just the Gang of Four. I was not free to disclose anything."

<snip>

[flvegan]

29. You do make a fine point on this.

Is it just me, or do the Dems always seem to be on defense?

[Stinky The Clown]

39. They don't always seem to be on defense ......

..... they always **are* on defense.

[bottomtheweaver]

34. You have to wonder what's going on with Paneta.

Is he just another Tenet-type political puppet, powerless to control his own agency, or is he actually going to step in and cut to the chase? And who is he supposed to be loyal to anyway, his new agency (if it really is new to him, which I kind of doubt), or Obama, or us?

This is perplexing.

[DCKit]

35. If most of DU knew *we* were torturing, doing extraordinary renditions and lying about WMDs...

I would have hoped those in Congress, with actual ACCESS to intelligence, would have known all this as well. Their claim that they didn't know what BushCo was doing just goes to show they aren't qualified to hold those positions - every damn one of them that went along and gave Dick and Dumbya what they asked for.

Your point is taken, but you're talking about a documented sin of omission as the (D) leadership is being accused of a sin of commission - the difference between knowing and doing nothing and being active and complicit in the crime.

[Stinky The Clown]

40. Where is the documented sin of omission?

[ColbertWatcher]

36. k+r. Well done.

What you've done in one post is remind everyone not to get caught up in the minutiae of details (which we may never get a complete set of, btw) but to look at the bigger picture--the part of the story we will get to see.

We've had the opportunity to watch these criminals in action for 8 years.

They have a pattern of behavior and we shouldn't forget it.

They call Rove a "genius," but it should start to become very clear that he is nothing of the sort. He is a low-level thug who has been getting a pass for the same crap over and over again.

I can't wait for him to testify.

Does anyone know when that will occur?

[Stinky The Clown]

41. Heh ......

.... just read this thread ..... everyone is caught up in minutia. That's why they get away with with they get away with. And funny thing is, they ***know** we get caught up in minutia so they throw out even more minutia.

Bush's service records got lost in a painfully STUPID dissection of the type ball of a Selectric typewriter.

We are, all too often, our own worst enemies.

[ColbertWatcher]

46. Good point! I forgot all about that damn typewriter! n/t

[Psychic Consortium]

45. You are correct. Pelosi is not the issue, we are being distracted. nt

[sellitman]

47. In your own way you are as eloquent as H20 Man & Mr Pitt.

This post is dead on!

The language is appropriate and exactly the way I feel.

Kick & Rec'd

[Rage for Order]

49. I have only one question for people who hold this view

How bad is it if you have evidence that one of your friends is a serial murderer, and that he plans to keep killing a person a week, but you elect not to inform the police? Are you as bad as the murderer? No, of course not. But by the same token you are not innocent either.

Anyone who knew that torture was happening had a moral obligation to speak out against it, period. She could have gotten in trouble for disclosing classified information? So what. Show some courage and do the right thing rather than doing the thing which is best for yourself.

[Release The Hounds]

52. Touche

[Kablooie]

55. They are up to their old dirty tricks and it's WORKING AGAIN! This will give them new confidence.

and you can be sure to hear more horrifying scandals about Democrats drowning out other issues soon.

[livefreest]

56. K&R

these allegations that Nancy Pelosi knew about torture and waterboarding are unproven at best and lies at worst. yet it seems some want to equate her knowledge of "enhanced interrogation techniques" that might be potentially used, to approving, designing, providing legal cover for these "EITs"
it's madness:crazy: