Pelosi was BRIEFED about interrogation tactics. Not CONSULTED. How could she have stopped it?

[beachmom]

Right now there is a debate as to what precisely Nancy Pelosi was told in September 2002 about "enhanced interrogation techniques". What I don't understand is how this means we can pin the torture on her. Believe me, I would like this issue to be non-partisan so that it can be taken out of the political realm, and be investigated in as nonpartisan a fashion as possible. But when I think about this classified briefing, where she was essentially told what the Administration was going to do or had done, where is her power? What people aren't quite grasping is that the legislative branch has been weakened considerably. The Executive Branch can basically do whatever the hell it wants. Then all they have to do is give a mere four members of Congress a classified briefing (so the member of Congress is not allowed to publicly talk about it) as a CYA practice. Now, if Pelosi was informed and did not object that is regrettable. Jane Harman clearly did object:

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

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."

So, we can praise Jane Harman for objecting. But in reality, that didn't do a damned thing. Because the Congress had just about zero power.

The torture issue is not just a human rights issue. It is also about abuse of power of the Executive Branch to do whatever it wants without Congress having the power to stop it.

So I find myself underwhelmed by the big "Pelosi Busted" headlines today. Politically, she may look bad. We may not care for her and think she is trying to have it both ways. But let's be clear here: Pelosi did not order torture, and had no power to stop it.

[Captain Hilts]

1. That's exactly right. And Pelosi had no right to squeal to the public about it either. nt

[Truth2Tell]

30. Sorry, wrong.

She not only had a right to squeal, but a legal and a moral OBLIGATION to squeal.

The laws that prevent the disclosure of classified information, particularly the State Secrets Act, do not permit the use of the Act to conceal criminal activities. The Act is explicit in that regard.

All that would have been required of Pelosi or any other briefed Congress member would have been a bit of courage and some common sense. They simply needed to make the self-evident and perfectly reasonable determination that what they were briefed about violated the law. Following that obvious conclusion they should then have spoken out.

Lets face it, they were afraid of the "soft-on-terror" political attacks from the media and the political opposition.

This is a case of sniveling cowardice, not legal concern.

[stillcool]

69. I would love it if everyone who has sat on..

on the various committee's that receive classified briefings over the last 50 years would tell all. I've read the reason why Congress has so little oversight on black ops, Intelligence Budgets..etc., is because they don't want to know. I don't know what the punishment is for revealing government secrets. The only person I remember doing anything like that is Phillip Agee. It's kind of funny that the law forbidding the outing of CIA agents came about because of him.

[LakeSamish706]

2. One way might have been to not take Impeachment off of the table and to actually...

have supported Impeachment would have been nice. She knew full well of many of the crimes that this Administration was engaged in and still took Impeachment off the table.

[beachmom]

5. Impeach him on what? It's classified, you must understand.

He could have been impeached on torture which is a war crime. However, how would you get the info to nail him on it? The Executive Branch now holds all the cards.

[LakeSamish706]

9. There were so many crimes that were obvious that they could have gone after....

It wasn't just war crimes at that time.

[Inuca]

16. Apples and oranges

For a gazillion reasons. Among them: torture briefing - 2002, dems in power - 2007. The issue is what she did, or did not do, or should have done, or had no way of doing, etc. in 2002.

[Thrill]

3. So we're supposed to believe that the outspoken Nancy Pelosi

was briefed on something she disagreed with and didn't raise her concerns?

I don't buy that.

[vaberella]

13. Actually she said that they said these were the list of possible techniques.

And she said during the meeting she didn't agree with those measures...but there was nothing to ever say these measures were in practice and she said they would be informed if they were in practice. But she said even when she was briefed it was to inform her of possible techniques and since she can't talk about those techniques because they were closed door but even then she was against them. No one has said she was lying either.

[polmaven]

54. Who says she didn't raise any concerns?

I again this morning saw the video of her with Rachel....and heard the words...out of her own mouth..."We have a disagreement on that".

Unless she was told directly that they WERE committing the torture procedures, voicing her opinion of disagreement was about all she could do.

[mikelgb]

4. She was BRIEFED on TORTURE

omg

"He was BRIEFED on the bank robbery not CONSULTED. How could he have stopped it?"

uhhhhm. by saying something.

[beachmom]

7. The briefing was classified. She was not allowed by law to say something.

What you are asking members of Congress to do is to go to jail in order to get any semblance of power. That is ridiculous.

[leveymg]

20. She enjoys Congressional Immunity - CAN'T be prosecuted for disclosure of classified info

The worst they could do to her would be to cut off further classified briefings.

Congressional Immunity for unauthorized release of classified information is nearly absolute. Don't forget that. See, Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 608-609 (1972).

Or just read the Wiki.

She was perfectly free to demand a halt to torture and disclose this and other classified information, such as the warrantless wiretapping Program, that she was aware of years before it was made known to the public.

Pelosi certainly had a moral and a legal right to step up and let the rest of us know about this. But, she failed in that duty.

[beachmom]

25. Treason.

That is what they would have said on Fox News. Not a court of law, but we are talking 2002 here.

Thanks for the schooling on the law, though.

[mikelgb]

26. TORTURE

for fucks sake

[beachmom]

31. Supported by more Americans than treason. And the approval of torture number would have

been higher in 2002.

Member of Congress would have been scalped in the media, and then nothing would have happened. Congress needs REAL POWER, and they don't have it.

[Inuca]

34. I am not so sure

from the constitution via wiki

The Speech or Debate Clause (found in Article I, Section 6, Clause 1) is a clause in the United States Constitution which states that members of both Houses of Congress

“ ...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 from the same, and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

Who/what determines what can be categorized as treason or felony? Any lawyers around to help????

[stillcool]

70. those secrecy laws were changed..

but even without those changes, I don't see how receiving stolen documents and reading them into the Congressional record prior to dispersing them is the same thing, as someone with a security clearance who was entitled to that information because of their security clearance, which is predicated on the secrecy oath.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?friend=nytimes&navby=case&court=us&vol=408&invol=606

[Inuca]

21. I agree, and it's a "minor" point

many here seem not to grasp or simply ignore for the sake of righteous and meaningless purity of thought. As I said in some other thread, most people, even if powerful politicians, are not inclined to become martyrs. It is easy to wish martyrdom upon somebody else from behind a keyboard. Pelosi, nor Rockefeller, nor a few others are not martyrs. What else is new?

By the way: I had a quick look at the pdf with the dates and names linked to from the WSJ article http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123120464870255997.html, but I cannot remember (and am too lazy to check) the date when the rest of the Senate intel committee was briefed vs. the date when the whole appaling mess became public knowledge. I was trying to decide whether St. Feingold missed martyrdom as well or not.

[beachmom]

33. Feingold was briefed but that was the whole committee. It was when

the cat was already out of the bag. 2005 or later.

[Inuca]

35. That's what I thought, thanks n/t

[frylock]

62. this excuse has gotten beyond tired..

http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Memoir-Vietnam-Pentagon-Papers/dp/0142003425/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241825036&sr=1-1">Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers

[Thrill]

8. Yeah all of sudden Pelosi was scared to speak up?

This is nonsense. She knew. Just didn't think anyone would find out.

[The Magistrate]

6. If You are Going To Make Sense On This Matter, Ma'am, Clearly You Are Not A 'Real Democrat'....

Obviously, the responsibility for the crimes of the Bush administration rests with the Bush administration, and nowhere else. Assertions ot the contrary are mere moonshine.

[beachmom]

11. Yup, but that is not what the media Gods told me today. They told

me that Pelosi was in on it. She should have written a letter though like Jane did. Sort of a "get out of jail free card". Wouldn't have changed a thing, but would have meant better headlines today.

[The Magistrate]

17. The Media, Ma'am, Like Some Here, Is Desperate To Dilute Responsibility For These Crimes

As the old saw goes, if everyone is to blame, no one really is to blame.

Persons on the left who make noises such as 'arrest Pelosi for war-crimes too!' and similar tripe are simply playing into the efforts of the Bush administration and its patrons. They really need to cut it out, or at least state openly they have joined in the Bush administration's defense.

[Truth2Tell]

36. The question of what Pelosi or any other Dem knew

or when they knew it has no bearing on the culpability of the torturers. To paraphrase Glenn Greenwald, secretly telling Nancy Pelosi about a crime (if they in fact did) doesn't make it any less of a crime.

[The Magistrate]

38. Quite True, Sir: Unfortunately That Simple Fact Seems Beyond The Grasp Of Some Here

[Truth2Tell]

41. Of course the reverse is also true.

The fact that Bush criminals are fully responsible for and directly committed the torture crimes doesn't absolve any Dems who may have been briefed from their own degree of complicity.

There appears to be plenty of complicity to go around. Nothing wrong with examining that (it's necessary in fact) as long as we keep the larger context in mind IMO.

[The Magistrate]

44. 'Degree of Complicity', Sir, Is Simply High-Test Weasel-Speak

Intended to suggest criminal liability where none exists or can exist, and generally fog a matter in squid's ink. The only purpose it serves is to shield the persons who are criminally liable, and these are the persons in the Bush administration who conceived, planned, and executed a policy of deliberate breaches of international law regarding treatment of prisoners.

[Truth2Tell]

47. Why can no criminal liability exist?

Having knowledge of a crime, particularly forknowledge, and failing to act on that knowedge, has always been considered a criminal act in itself.

[The Magistrate]

50. Because That Is How The Law Is Structured, Sir

The Legislature has no command authority over the internal actions of the Executive branch. Actions conceived by the chiefs of the Executive, and carried out by subordinates of the Executive, are solely the responsibility of the Executive. One might be able to make a case against legislators who voted for a law explicitly stating the country would defy international law and engage in torture, but short of that, there is no room in the law for the sort of charge it seems you want to make.

The criminal charge you seem to be searching for is misprison, and it does not apply in this matter. All knowledge imparted was under classified seal, and further, was imparted by the branch of government to which report of the knowledge would have to be brought.

[Truth2Tell]

58. A few points...

First, I don't suggest actually bringing criminal charges against members of Congress who had knowledge of these crimes. There are a variety of ways such complicity could be punished. My preference would simply be replacement in office at the next election cycle by other Democrats with a, shall we say, more robust view of the role of Congressional oversight.

Nevertheless, a couple of your points are flawed. While the information was indeed delivered under classified seal, the seal was not legally legitimate. The law pertaining to the disclosure of classified materials, the State Secrets Act, specifically prohibits it's use to hide criminal actions. All that would have been required of any briefed Congress member would have been to make the self-evident and perfectly reasonable determination that what they were briefed about violated the law. Following that obvious conclusion they then could have and should have spoken out. If that legal reasoning weren't enough, the briefed Congress members also enjoy Congressional immunity for revelations made on the floor of the House or Senate.

As for being imparted the knowledge by the branch of the government to which report of the knowledge would have to be brought... lets not forget that the Legislative branch also holds real, though rarely used, oversight, investigative and punitive power over the executive branch. They had plenty of options.

Lets admit it, they were afraid of the political fallout if they stood up to this. Sad but true.

[Raskolnik]

43. I don't believe this dilutes the Bush admin's liability one iota, but it does indicate that Pelosi

is damn near worthless.

[The Magistrate]

45. That, Sir, Is An Opinion You Are Welcome To And Free To Hold

But it remains the case that cries from the left denouncing "DINO collaborators" and the like simply serve the interests of the criminals of the Bush administration, by clouding the real criminal liabilities, and giving a 'bi-partisan' veneer to one of their major chosen lines of defense against prosecution.

[Raskolnik]

46. I am certainly not one of those denouncing "DINO collaborators,"

nor did I think that Pelosi should lose her job because she wasn't an advocate of impeachment.

However, perhaps the reason this story giver a 'bi-partisa' veneer to the issue is because the Democratic "leadership" was more complicit in the decisions to torture than we would like to admit.

[The Magistrate]

49. My View Of 'Complicity', Sir

May be seen in No. 44 above. It is a usage deliberately contrived for one of two purposes, either to make prosecution seem more difficult or potentially dangerous, or to try and bring persons one does not like under a penumbra of criminality when one does not actually have grounds to do so. The right presses the line from the first motive, some on the left do so from the second. Given the actual balance of media and political power, those on the left who press this cannot achieve their own goal, but simply further the goals of the rightists.

[Raskolnik]

51. I'm sorry, T.M., but that was an exercise in hand-waving.

Of course no reasonable person thinks that Pelosi shares the same degree of culpabiliy as Bush, and no reasonable person thinks that Pelosi is a war criminal deserving of prosecution.

But, frankly, her knowledge of what was going on, combined with her utter inaction to stop it, combined with her subsequent lies about what she knew, should give us pause about her as "leader" of the Democratic party.

[The Magistrate]

52. No, Sir, It Is An Accurate Statement Of The State Of Play in This Matter

[Raskolnik]

53. I believe you are ignoring the facts of the matter to focus exlusively on the political

motivations. I concede that there are various motives for attacking Pelosi about this, many of which I do not share.

However, can you deny that if this report is accurate, Pelosi has quite a bit of explaining to do?

[The Magistrate]

55. Not In The Least, Sir: The Facts Of the Matter Are My Principal Focus

The facts are that all criminal liability here rests with the Executive, and that diverting focus from this serves only the interests of the actual criminals.

[Raskolnik]

56. I don't believe the issue is one of criminal liablity, but one of critical failure of leadership.

Again, no reasonable person thinks that any criminal liability should be deflected from Bush or attached to Pelosi, but that does not give Pelosi a free pass for her conduct.

[RoyGBiv]

10. Everyone does understand ...

That the "Noise Machine" is reaching for any straw to try to tickle our nose and distract from the main issue ... right? Right?

Someone earlier rambled on about how Congress is a co-equal branch of government and is therefore responsible for this and that and the other thing ...

As you mention, that's *exactly* the point. Congress *is* a co-equal branch of government, but during the Bush regime, it was unable to act as such, for the majority of the time because the Republicans in Congress were rolling over and allowing the Executive to act with impunity.

But now ... NOW Republicans and their little noise makers who try to pretend they aren't being partisan hacks suddenly find this notion of Congress being co-equal and all ... now that it suits their purpose.

To repeat, in the hopes it sinks in, the Noise Machine is at a full roar right now trying to push anything that even momentarily pulls the ears away from Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld/Yoo ... etc.

I'm generally not one to get too involved in these arguments about criticism of Democrats because, frankly, some of them deserve it. But, in this case, let's PLEASE keep our eye on the ball. Pelosi is a very small fish in this ocean, even if she did have the power to do anything at all. (And I can't quite imagine what that was.)

[Raskolnik]

12. Perhaps she could have not lied about what she knew was happening.

That would have been a start, don't you think?

[beachmom]

15. The jury is out on whether she lied. I found the evidence inconclusive.

She said she was briefed, but disputes what the CIA said they briefed her precisely about. Nothing in that CIA doc today clears up the matter.

[Raskolnik]

23. IF she knew about the specific torture occurring, and lied about it, do you think that speaks highly

of the good Speaker?

[beachmom]

27. I said in my OP that this doesn't make her look good. It also does not make her a war criminal. nt

[Raskolnik]

37. I don't think she's a war criminal. I think she is a craven, spineless opportunist that only views

her "leadership" in terms of how it can benefit Nancy Pelosi. She was perfectly willing to go along to get along when she thought that it would be unpopular to question torture, then she pretended that all of it was occuring without her knowledge. Feh.

[LakeSamish706]

14. "Believe me, I would like this issue to be non-partisan" Now that I totally agree...

with. An independent investigation should be launched... (Maybe even by another country)

[dflprincess]

18. If Daniel Ellsberg had the spine to give the Pentagon Papers to the NY Times

and the Times had the spine to print them - the Democrats who knew about this could have and should have stood up and yelled. Stamping "classified" on a document that admits to criminal behavior does not make it a matter of national security.

They're all accessories and now we know why impeachment was off the table and why they're going to let Bushco get by with this.

[beachmom]

29. So in order for Congress to have power, they must give up their careers?

Because that is what happened to him, and would have happened to a member of Congress who revealed classified info.

[dflprincess]

48. They all took an oath to protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic

if they're too worried about their own necks to do that, perhaps they should resign.

[frylock]

64. fucking absolutely!

what you're saying is that it's perfectly acceptable for members of congress to have ignored something like this in order to keep thier job?! that is ridiculous!!

[Autumn]

19. I am not crazy about Pelosi but

she was really not at liberty to discuss this, and I agree that there was nothing she could have done.

[Raskolnik]

24. How about not lying about what she knew?

Just because she was legally restricted from divulging certain information does not mean she was obligated to lie about what she did know.



edit typo

[Autumn]

32. Well she did say she was briefed

I do remember that so what did she lie about?

[Raskolnik]

42. She's maintained for years that she was never told that we were waterboarding

She's maintained that she knew that the administration told her it thought that waterboarding was legal, but she didn't know they were actually doing it. Turns out, that might be a damn lie (but I'm willing to allow for the possibility that is isn't).

[polmaven]

57. If and when conclusive evidence

is put forth to say she knew that the torture was actually being carried out, and said and did nothing, then, and only them, I will agree with you. But at this moment, that evidence has not been shown. You know...The tired old "beyond a reasonable doubt" thing that I used to hear about somewhere.

Why is it that some on this site are so willing to believe anyone in the Bush Administration over our own Democratic elected officials?

[Raskolnik]

59. Time will tell.

But Pelosi does not get a lot of benefit of the doubt from me.

[polmaven]

60. That is quite obvious...

I guess "innocent until proven guilty" is only for those who do exactly as you wish.

[Raskolnik]

61. No, just that "innocent until proven guilty" is a standard for a court of law...

...not evaluating political leadership.

[polmaven]

67. Technically, of course...

but would it do all of us well to try to live by that standard?

Or is it simply more convenient to assign blame first and determine guilt sometime later? It sure make political agendas much easier.

[certainot]

22. what's important is what limbaugh and hannity and spawn have been telling

tens of millions everyday- that even thought there's no big deal with torture (eit), pelosi and other dems knew all about it

that makes it acceptable for the rest of the trad media

[TreasonousBastard]

28. She couldn't, but that won't stop the...

complaining about why she didn't.

("My mind is made up-- don't confuse me with facts.")

[Raskolnik]

40. I'm willing to concede that she couldn't have stopped it, but did she have to lie about it? n/t

[ProSense]

63. She didn't lie about a damn thing.

Facts.

[TreasonousBastard]

65. She's a politician-- you expect truth?

[sandnsea]

39. At some point, courage must lead

I don't know exactly what they were told or thought was going on. But at some point, "classified" just doesn't wash. After Abu Ghraib, they should have talked, especially seeing that troops were going to prison for what the President ordered.

[frylock]

66. especially seeing that troops were going to prison for what the President ordered..

word up!

[SoCalDem]

68. Democrats always "suffer" from their 'timidity"

We dropped the ball in Watergate by not indicting/impeaching Nixon, and Ford was allowed to claim the "calming of america"..it ultimately did him in, but it set the stage for the demonization of Carter and ushered in Reagan..with the full load of former-Nixonites


We dropped the ball in Iran Contra..(we had majority then), and we ended up with Bush 1 and Bush 2


and all during the bush 2 years our cowed dems in congress went along with almost everything bush wanted, so they gave him cover, and included themselves in the criminal behavior..

republicans refuse to participate, so to their followers, they are "pure", and cannot be "blamed" when things go badly.... we always have some who will go along to get along, and then try to weasel out when they get called on it..

[Kaleva]

71. Go public? Resign? Risk jail time?