What exactly are the Repubs saying that Pelosi is guilty of doing?

[kentuck]

This puzzles me. If Bush and Cheney were not guilty of torture, as they say, then what exactly are they saying that Pelosi is guilty of doing??

Or are they trying to say something else entirely?

Are they saying that Bush and Cheney are guilty of torture but so are several Democrats, including Pelosi, Rockefeller, and Harman? And if you are going to investigate Bush and Cheney for their crimes, then you have to investigate Pelosi also?

It is a totally irrational and illogical argument. They may have given the orders to torture but those that might have been told about it are equally guilty to those that physically did it or gave the orders to do it? Is that what they are trying to say?

And if Pelosi knew, does that mean that Bush and Cheney are no longer guilty? Because they told a Democrat or two about what their plans were to torture prisoners, then that makes it all OK? It is difficult for me to imagine people that think like this actually leading our nation...

[babylonsister]

1. Torture's not a crime, unless they can insinuate a Dem knew about it.

Wacky thinking if you ask me.

[merh]

16. Not exactly

They are saying "we didn't torture and if we did, it was no crime because the president 'okayed it' and it stopped bad guys and besides, dems knew about it."

[babylonsister]

21. But what if Dems didn't and the former admin did?

Pelosi wasn't exactly in control then. They are asking for a fight they can't win. I think darth is bluffing. He has two cases among thousands? He's a nut.

[merh]

22. Pelosi was the top dem on the committee

That isn't their problem, the bushco folks told CIA to do whatever necessary to make the 9/11-AQ-Iraq connections - they approved torture before they "authorized it" and got the memos to "legitimize it". The same memos that the CIA operatives hope gives them immunity or absolution provide a "good faith" defense for the dems/repubs on the congressional intel committees. The CIA was torturing before they told the intel committees that they were going to torture. The reports to congress were CYA briefings - the wrongs had already been committed.

Personally, I say prosecute them all, dems/reps - operatives and agents, admin and congress and agency heads. Let the justice system sort it out and let it be known that no one is above the law.

Anyone with a lick of sense and an ounce of humanity who actually believes in this nation knows that the admin cannot ignore the laws and that if the laws are on the books, only congress can repeal them, and the laws on the books of this nation make torture a crime. 8th amendment is a biggie against cruel and unusual, we just don't abuse and torture folks. The president cannot execute orders to circumvent the law and the intel community cannot break the laws for the sake of "intel" or national security.

[C_U_L8R]

2. It's an obnoxious game of "I know you are but what am I"

If anything Pelosi is "guilty" of not stopping them from committing crimes (which they don't seem to be denying)
Hardly conspiracy (but not exactly ethical)

[NoQuarter]

7. Beat me to it.

It's an obnoxious game of "I know you are but what am I."

Oh, so true.

[flyarm]

9. exactly!!!!!!! thank you!! eom

[BlooInBloo]

3. (shrug) Call their bluff.

[FrenchieCat]

4. Exactly!

It's kind of like knowing about what might be going on is the same as actually making it happen.

And our news media is going with it.

Time to write to those bastards.

[billyoc]

5. Aiding and abetting Republicans.

[JDPriestly]

6. Passing a bill in December 2005 with Republican support that absolutely

defined and banned torture once and for all. (Bush signed a signing statement saying he did not have to obey that law.) I fell for all this nonsense about Democrats in Congress being complicit until I saw the December bill.

Here are the facts about Congress's reaction to the information about the torture.



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 ...

Remember. The Democrats were still in the minority in December 2005 yet they got this passed. And also, remember, that the Republicans were extremely partisan against the Democrats in Congress at this time. Don't forget the historical context.

[flyarm]

8. Go read Emptywheel ..it has been posted over and over here..

Marcy Wheeler has it all laid out there!!!!!!!!!

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/

[kentuck]

11. Don't you think...

Sometimes it helps to post it in a different way? That other folks might identify with and we can get more people to understand exactly what is happening? Why does anyone have the last word on a topic when it may not be expressed in the most concise and understandable way? People do not like to read long articles on a discussion board. I know that may surprise some folks.

[flyarm]

15. I think if you want to know precisely what is going on , you will go read it from

the people who have done the greatest research and not someone's bs here that wants to take it down to simple two second sound bites.

Sometimes being a good citizen means reading the facts from those who have done the research, not watered down to fit someone else's agenda.

To do a bunch of paraphrasing of very detailed research of the memo's is doing an injustice to those involved and Americans in general, because they won't get the information available in full. It is disingenuous.

Many of us have tried to report the info but with the way one must post it here we are then accused of standing at one side or another when in fact we simply tried to report the research that has been done and is going on at present.

Thats what i think.

[kentuck]

28. I have read it but..

some people may not have read it. Anyway, what does that have to do with the question in the OP??

[SoCalDem]

10. NOT stopping THEM from breaking the law

and for voting WITH them on the legislation that made it quasi-legal..

Kind of like having a guy point a gun at you while he robs you, and you did not call the police because he treatened to kill you & had your address..

When he's caught later, he tells the police that he's not really guilty, because you did not grab the gun from his hand & stop him...

[opihimoimoi]

12. Gimme a break...ya think them Pubs would tell Nancy about the torture?

Of course they did not...it was a SECRET...they told her enough to say later..."SHE KNEW TOO" Its an ole card them Bullies use...

Its the "What about them?" card...distractions...

These Pubs are clever Pigs...they throw mud all the time....check out their rhetoruc

[MadMaddie]

13. This is the great lie of the Repug party

Even if Pelosi knew she was bound by the law to not disclose classified information. If she did then she would have been subject to prosecution.


The Repugs are playing a very dangerous game. Nancy should turn it on them....which one of them knew the same information and why didn't they have the balls to come out with it?

[SmileyRose]

14. She has a D next to her name.

It has to be her fault.

[ColbertWatcher]

17. Good question! k+r, n/t

[Canuckistanian]

18. Yes, hard to see what they have to gain from this

So by their reasoning, Pelosi is being accused of saying nothing about something that was perfectly fine and legal.
And if she did say something, she could have been charged.

What's their problem here?

[emulatorloo]

19. Interesting post -- Pretzel Logic for a Twisted World n/t

[Triana]

20. Pelosi is guilty of nothing. This is a DISTRACTION from Republican guilt in the matter. n/t

[alittlelark]

24. Ding Ding Ding!!!!

At least in regards to the 'DISTRACTION' ....

I don't know which family members were wiretapped - but I can guess that she knows now.


How did we let this EVIL get away w/it?

[Triana]

26. Republicans project. Remember that. n/t

[Vickers]

23. For hearing about Idiot George and Limpdick Cheney authorizing torture.

:thumbsup:

[LiberalAndProud]

25. Certainly an interesting blame game they are playing.

I guess they don't want the torture plank all to themselves any more.

[HamdenRice]

27. Sadly, I think they may have made the Democrats "accessories after the fact"

Maybe someone with more knowledge of criminal law will chime in.

An accessory to a crime is someone who has knowledge of a crime and fails to report it. A typical fact pattern is, your cousin robs a bank and while on the run, comes to you and says, I can't stay, I just robbed a bank and I'm on my way to Mexico. You don't report the crime. You may be an accessory after the fact.

It is less than being an accomplice which is a person who actually participates in the crime.

In some jurisdictions, an accessory has to provide some kind of support or encouragement as well.

The Bush administration informed Pelosi and other Democratic leaders that they had committed these crimes and asked for Congressional support or approval.