On May 8, 2009, at 9:04 AM, Charles Bennett wrote:
On May 8, 2009, at 11:21 AM, Kevin Callahan wrote:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3867763
Source: Raw Story
Democrats were routinely briefed on Bush torture techniques, document
shows
By John Byrne
from Greenwald:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/05/08-16
But what's the point of all of this? Secretly telling Nancy Pelosi
that you're committing crimes doesn't mean that you have the right to
do so. And the profound failures of the other institutions that are
supposed to check executive lawbreaking during the Bush era --
principally Congress and the "opposition party" -- is a vital issue
that demands serious examination. This dispute over what Pelosi (and
Jay Rockefeller and others) knew highlights, rather than negates, the
need for a meaningful investigation into what took place.
[snipped]
Looking over the attendees list I see both parties represented so, now
that the memo has been leaked, it should be easy to decide who's
lying.
This does jib with the CIA officer that said that members of the
committee asked him if he was being "tough enough"
"In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first
look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from
reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour,
the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas
detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to
try to make their prisoners talk.
Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was
waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as
torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that
day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the
room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said."
IF it wasn't so serious it'd be laughable.
Pelosi: ""We were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding
or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used.What
they did tell us is that they had . . . the Office of Legal Counsel
opinions [and] that they could be used, but not that they would," she
said."
OTOH..
Pelosi: "This is what they're doing. That's all they do. They don't
come in to consult. They come in to notify. They come in to notify.
And you can't -- you can't change what they're doing unless you can
act as a committee or as a class. You can't change what they're
doing."
Uh, didn't she just say they were briefing her on what they were *not*
doing? WTF? Besides. Oversight is her JOB..
Yes, I guess George W. Bush was ordering up those all those Legal
memos as an intellectual exercise, so he could kick back and read them
as a way to unwind at the end of a long day.
He was not *actually* thinking of using the anti-terrorism tools at
his disposal on captured Al Qaeda leaders.
Bush was just that deep into those sorts of intellectual exercises..
That's credible, right?
'Having the CIA leak detailed "who was there. what was said" is
priceless.
It's gotta be shocking to anyone on the left that actually believed
that Reid, Pelosi, Rangle and the rest were kept in the dark.
When Congressional leaders are sworn to secrecy for national security
purposes, they better have a very good reason for breaking that
pledge. But when they learn about something that the Executive Branch
is doing, claims is legal but is explicitly illegal, what can a poor
Speak of the House do?
As it happens, the Framers of the Constitution already thought of
this problem and thoughtfully even gave her explicit instructions that
in such a situation she could speak out without fear of prosecution.
Article I of the Constitution (Joe Biden, if you're reading this -
that's the one that deals with Congress)
Section 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a
compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid
out of the treasury of the United States. 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.
So it was both her right and her duty to speak up and she took an oath
to do just that. IF it was torture then they would be hard pressed to
charge her with treason no?
The "I was sworn to secrecy so I couldn't argue" just doesn't hold
water.
What this all means, of course, is that the CIA has *explained* to
Pelosi that she needs to STFU cause they have the goods.
Expect this to quietly go away soon, to be replaced with the health
care debate. (LOOK! over there.. a shiny crisis..)
=c=
"Guns don't kill pirates; US Navy Seals kill pirates."
_______________________________________________
OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected]
http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters
List hosted at http://cat5.org/
_______________________________________________
OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected]
http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters
List hosted at http://cat5.org/
