Who cares about what Pelosi knew or when she knew it?

[Usrename]

She certainly knows NOW that people were tortured.

What is she doing NOW with this knowledge?

Nothing, nothing at all, except for helping to stifle any and all investigations.

She took "impeachment off the table" for crying out loud.

Her current, ongoing inaction is a separate crime under the Convention Against Torture.

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


Article 2

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Article 4

1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offenses under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.

2. Each State Party shall make these offenses punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

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.

Article 13

Each State Party shall ensure that any individual who alleges he has been subjected to torture in any territory under its jurisdiction has the right to complain to, and to have his case promptly and impartially examined by, its competent authorities. Steps shall be taken to ensure that the complainant and witnesses are protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given.

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

This is an ongoing crime.

Failure to act NOW is a separate crime, in and of itself.

Principle VII

Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

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

[rucky]

1. Pelosi cares. This is pure CYA. n/t

[babylonsister]

2. Pete Hoekstra is 'very concerned'...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3868361

[Usrename]

26. I'm pretty sure he doesn't care either.

He's just on another witch hunt.

on edit> i guess i missed the "" around the "very concerned" :hide: ignore this message

[STOP_BS]

3. I hate bush for lying and I HATE LIARS

Pelosi is a LIAR AND WHO CAN TRUST ON HER?

WHO CAN TRUST ON A LIAR??????????????????

SHE IS LIKE BUSH,

[sinkingfeeling]

8. Oh, I guess you take the word of the CIA as gospel then.

[emulatorloo]

10. Remember Seymour Hersh saying that Cheney left behind "sleeper cells?"

I have no doubt there are a few Cheney loyalists at the CIA.

[Usrename]

11. I don't think it matters at all if she is telling the truth or not.

What is she doing right now, TODAY, to comply with her obligations under our laws?

If she does NOTHING then that is a NEW crime, in addition to the interrogations.

Refusing to comply with domestic and international law is a crime, and the law says she must act.

See the word "SHALL" in the OP? "Shall" means she must, she has a duty to act if she is to comply with the law.

Get what I mean? Doing nothing is a separate criminal act. She is commiting a separate crime if she refuses to act.

[frylock]

13. and you can take the word of a POLITICIAN as gospel then

[LynneSin]

4. Personally I think this is nothing more than a republican generated bluff

to mislead the fact that it was their party and their leaders that enabled the torturing.

Nancy Pelosi was NOT the Speaker of the House when this started. The republicans are desparate to have the demcorats backoff on the torture and they are 'threatening' to expose Pelosi.

Please don't buy into it. I understand many of you don't like her but she is NOT the enemy when it comes to torture.

[STOP_BS]

5. WHY SHE AGREED WITH BUSH ON WATERBOARDING THE GTMO CRIMINALS?

Why pelosi didn't come against criminal bush 7 years ago ON THE WATERBOARDING FACTOR?

pelosi is a liar and must step down

[emulatorloo]

12. Pretty inflammatory, and why is it in all CAPS? Oh, yes WELCOME TO DU!!!! eom

[LynneSin]

15. Oh geez, enjoying the big drink from the Republican Kool-aid dispenser?

If Nancy Pelosi is guilty of anything it'll come out when we investigate the REPUBLICANS - the ones that wrote, enabled and enacted the torture policies. (and btw, 7 years ago Pelosi wasn't even the minority leader - she was just the whip).

Republicans want us to focus our blame on someone else in hopes that the heat is off them. Perhaps because IF we did finally get the real investigation we've been demanding for years - there could be many many big name republicans behind bars.

Republicans are offering up someone they know is already not popular within the party progressive followers in hopes we're STUPID enough to forget about them (the republicans) and go after our own instead). And what would we get - some mid-level person who might have heard some briefs about torturing but had very little else to do with creating the policy.

[spanone]

17. why didn't any congressperson....nancy wasn't even the minority leader at the time..get a grip

[LynneSin]

19. That's the biggest irony of it all

I think it was mid-2003 she got that title. And then we were in pretty deep minority that gave us very limited abilities to do anything but hold a few hearings and have absolutely no votes on the floor.

[Usrename]

24. The OP has nothing to do with before.

The OP is about NOW.

Today.

Right this minute.

Do you understand?

[Usrename]

7. It has nothing to do with my likes or dislikes.

This is an ongoing crime, that's all.

What is she doing in order to ensure that the criminals are brought to justice?

She has a DUTY to ACT. Get it? If she does NOTHING, that is a separate CRIME. See?

This post is about criminal conduct, not about likes or dislikes.

[LynneSin]

9. Focus on the criminals then the ones that created this

Pelosi was the minority speaker who had little sway in stopping this even when everyone was speaking out with this.

If she was criminal in any way it'll come out when we prosecute the REAL criminals - the ones that created & enacted the policies.

[Usrename]

20. I'll type s-l-o-w-l-y.

It is a CRIME for her to do nothing right now.

TODAY!!!!

She must ACT!!!

Failure to act is a CRIME!!!!

Do you you understand what the concept is?

If you will read the obligations that she is under, in accordance with the Convention Against Torture and the Nuremberg Principles (see the OP for details) you will see that the law obligates her to perform certain duties in order to remain in compliance with the law. The imperative term "shall" is used in the pertinent articles, thereby making it obligatory for her to do stuff. If she refuses to do this stuff, then that is a separate, ongoing crime.

It is a CRIME that she is willfully committing TODAY!!! Right now, as we speak.

Do you understand what this post is about now?

[LynneSin]

21. I'll type it even S-L-O-W-L-I-E-R for you

She isn't the one that can start this. This all starts in committee - which she is not in charge of any of them. I believe Coyners and Waxman have both been working on this one.

[Usrename]

25. There ya go!

As Speaker she has no legislative responsibilities. That's the ticket!!!

[marshall]

32. Explain it to hervery slowly and in one syllable words, with lots of pauses

She didn't understand when they were telling her about it the first time--it still hasn't quite sunk in--say it a few more times and eventually she will get it. Then we may see some action.

[LynneSin]

37. How about I really don't fucking care if keeps us from investigating who did it

Seriously - go play with your bright shiny ball while Bush & Cheney get away with murder.

You are the clueless ones that the republicans hope bite into this story and go to town with it. We turn on Pelosi and create the outrage while the sins of the past administration slowly fade away.

Speaker of the House has no control over what happens in committee - they lead the fight on the floor. Let Conyers do his job, the man never gave a shit what Pelosi wanted him to do.

[marshall]

39. Then Pelosi should just start saying "No comment"

I agree with what you are saying. Pelosi is muddying the waters by making claims that can easily be refuted (whether they are in fact relevant or not). It's the same old story--it's not the initial action that is the issue, it's the coverup.

[spanone]

27. the criminal conduct was cheney and bu$h* ...get it? understand?

[Usrename]

29. I don't think that is in dispute at all. Especially not by me.

You are correct about these past crimes.

This thread is about a current crime. One that is happening right now. Today.

Get it? Understand?

[LynneSin]

36. Is it?

Come on, we were talking about the use of torture for years here at DU. I would be SHOCKED of Pelosi or ranking democrats weren't aware of something.

This is a shiny ball that is distracting us from the real criminals here. And this isn't the only topic that the republicans are using distraction tactics to keep us focused from the real issues at hand. They're doing it with the Economy and they are hoping this will work with the investigation into torture. Distract us enough by putting out the names of democrats that have always been unpopular especially with the progressives in hopes that we'll forget who we really should be investigating.

If Pelosi is guilty it'll come out during the REAL investigations needed which, btw, are not done by her but thru committee. And John Conyers has never EVER backed down from Pelosi. Go after the ones that created and allowed the torture to happen. This is nothing but bullshit in hopes we'll forget what Bush, Cheney and his goons did.

[Usrename]

43. Why do you think the committees haven't acted?

Do you think that Pelosi wants to bring these folks to justice, and that she just doesn't know how to do it?

Do you think that she doesn't have the authority to do anything? I don't understand the argument you are making.

Yes, there are criminals afoot in this country. How does that fact make it acceptable for the Speaker to be in criminal dereliction of her duty? I mean right now. She should be calling for a vote on whether or not to impeach Bybee, at the very least. She does have that authority. She should get herself onto the right side of history here, before it's too late to turn back.

She has little time left, IMHO.

[Hannah Bell]

57. why are you telling the *poster* to go after the criminals? the democrats

have the white house & a majority. i thought that it was *their job* to go after the criminals?

[frylock]

14. what the shit does that have to do with anything?!

she was on the fucking house intelligence committee.

[EFerrari]

35. This last POS from CIA is, you're 100% right about that. But,

Nancy was among a group of Congressional leaders that were briefed, just like they always are on intelligence stuff. Just like they were in the wiretapping deal.

How thoroughly they were briefed is something else. And CIA is also wrong about the number that were briefed. It can't be more 16, 8 from both sides.

The Republicans tried to do this when the wiretapping was made public, remember? And it was the same people on our side that were targeted in the media, the same people who denied knowing. The Republicans are just trying to throw sand in the works and get people upset.

WE ALREADY KNEW that Congressional leaders were briefed.

[LynneSin]

38. Good, she was briefed. If during the investigations into what Bush & Cheney have done...

...showed that she is somehow involved we can move further on it.

But I want the kingpins leading the torture, not some middleperson.

[EFerrari]

40. They thought that by involving everyone at the top of government

they were buying immunity.

I want them to be badly disappointed.

[ejpoeta]

6. my feeling is that the only reason no one in congress really wants to deal with the torture issue

is that they are all involved and want to cover their own asses. personally, i don't care who goes down.... this needs to be investigated by a special investigator and let the chips fall where they may. period. end of discussion. we can have no credibility with other countries when we do not have accountability for our own leaders.

[frylock]

16. fuckin a!

[LynneSin]

18. Valid point taken

But that's why we have to focus on the ones that created and enacted this policy. It was NOT Nancy Pelosi. I'm not saying she is innocent - she's like going after some mid-level drug dealer instead of actually trying to find out who the head of the drug cartel is. You get rid of Nancy Pelosi, she'll be replaced but you'll still have the cartel out there dealing their goods.

[ejpoeta]

22. i understand what you are saying. and i tend to agree in the sense that pelosi and others

really couldn't do anything about it even if they did know. they couldn't even talk about it, could they? but this is a serious case of CYA on a lot of people's part.... and the republicans damn well know it. what surprises me is that the dems probably think that by not going after anyone for this then the republicans won't go after the dem president.... clinton was impeached for perjury... while perjury is wrong, what he did didn't cause anyone's death or more terrorists. yet they took him down anyway. and i think the republicans wouldn't bat an eyelash going after obama or anyone else for anything if given the chance. this needs to not be about anything but the rule of law and not letting this kind of thing every happen again.

[Usrename]

23. The point is not what she did in the past, but what she is doing today.

If she does not take any action, today, right now, then that is a separate crime that she is committing. A brand new crime.

[LynneSin]

34. Not really for her to take the action - that comes from the committees

Conyers and Waxman hardly seem the type to "sit & wait" for what Nancy wants.

[Usrename]

41. I have to disagree.

It seems as if Conyers and Waxman are not moving forward against Bush/Cheney until Pelosi gives the OK.

She is the leader of the House, and it's difficult, if not impossible to get around her, just like it was with impeachment.

[LynneSin]

42. Conyers and Waxman have never followed what Pelosi has told them

this investigation will not be solved at the snap of the fingers.

[Usrename]

45. Many think that Conyers was ready to impeach Bush.

I'm in that crowd.

Having watched Conyers for years, his decision to let Bush/Cheney get away with murder is sort of inexplicable. I know it's complicated, but I always thought that Conyers had the utmost respect for the Constitution and the protection of people's civil rights. How he was persuaded to turn his back on all of that is a complete puzzlement.

So you think that Pelosi is really out to get all the Bush/Cheney criminals, but that she just hasn't had enough time yet.

Is that it?

Give her more time. She might do something if we just give her time.

Or, are you saying that Conyers doesn't have any evidence yet of any crime, so we should give him more time?

[LynneSin]

47. Oh I knew that wasn't going to happen with Bush in office

any attempts to impeach would have failed miserably in the senate. We would have slapped Bush's hands just like Clinton was back in 1998. Only difference is that Bush committed real crimes and Clinton lied about sex.

We're not done with Bush - not by a longshot. I think we're way beyond impeachment and moving into the waters of criminal investigation.

[Usrename]

49. Impeachment was the right course.

It would have ended this nightmare much sooner.

The argument that there would have been a failure to convict in the Senate is a pretty weak argument, which is more faith-based than reality-based.

What Bush/Cheney did has turned out to be very unpopular with the public. The public could have learned about all these crimes much sooner, and is more likely than not that he would have been convicted in the Senate. Surely everyone up for reelection in '08 would have voted to convict.

The unpopularity that Bush/Cheney enjoy today could have been brought about much sooner, years ago, if she had not shielded these criminals from any harm.

[LynneSin]

54. He didn't have the votes in the senate - it would have been a hand slap

and we would have had nothing

[Usrename]

56. Are you making a faith-based argument? Is that it?

What is Cheney's popularity now? Or Bush's? Who in their right mind, running for reelection, would vote to acquit Bush/Cheney?

That's a ridiculous argument. Of course they would have been convicted, if it even went that far. More likely they would have run screaming off into the sunset like the cowards they are, before a trial could even be held.

Not enough votes in the Senate... Hahaha...

As a matter of fact, anyone who acquitted them for torture would be subject to prosecution under international law.

Not enough votes in the Senate? Really? Some people still buy into that ridiculousness...

[sammythecat]

48. My suspicion as well

I agree with your other points as well.

[ProgressIn2008]

51. I tend to agree - CYA going down. The OP has a good pt too - what are they doing about it now? nt

[spanone]

28. why do you only blame pelosi? is it her job to investigate? is she the one? what about justice dept

[Usrename]

31. I don't just blame Pelosi. What gave you that idea.

I am just trying to make an observation that all this hoopla about "what did she know and when did she know it" is a moot discussion.

She certainly knows NOW. Right. And so does Gen. Holder. Failure for him to act is also a crime.

[marshall]

30. She is the proverbial deer in the headlights

She can't act--she is frozen with the dread of the next foot falling.

[Usrename]

33. If she would just plunge ahead then it would all work itself out.

She is under the microscope today. Her actions today could set the course for the future. I agree, she seems paralyzed.

[TreasonousBastard]

44. Just what is it she should do? What does the Speaker do...

about such crimes?

There are committees to investigate, the Justice Dept. to prosecute, and Special Prosecutors to appoint, if necessary. The Speaker has nothing to do with any of these.

[Usrename]

46. Do you really believe that the Speaker is powerless in this instance?

Really?

How about calling for a vote to impeach Bybee?

She has that power, doesn't she?

She needs to do something that gets her on the right side of this issue.

Doing nothing is a crime. She cannot just stand by and be a spectator. There are real, reliable accusations of torture. Her participation is mandatory.

[Usrename]

50. More info on what the Speaker can do.

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

[TreasonousBastard]

52. You're grasping at straws-- try finding some past history when...

a Speaker initiated impeachment, criminal proceedings, investigations, or anything else relevant here.

Just for shits and giggles, show us Tip O'Neill's personal involvement in all the Reagan era indictments. There were hundreds of them from HUD to Iran-Contra and many in between-- if it's the Speaker's job to deal with that sort of thing, O'Neill must have been behind most of them.

[Usrename]

53. You're right. She can only take impeachment off the table

That is the limit to her power.

Insert eyeroll here.

You don't seem to understand what is happening. There is NOTHING to investigate. What would you have these other committees do? What's wrong with starting the impeachment proceedings against Bybee, at the very least. What is it that you think is lacking here? She could bring a vote today if she wanted to.

We really don't have to go all the way back to Tip, since Gingrich initiated impeachment against Clinton. Tip's immediate predecessor, Carl Albert, as Speaker, referred some two dozen impeachment resolutions against Nixon to the House Judiciary Committee for debate and study.

What is it that you think Pelosi is waiting for? The Bybee memos are enough to impeach him. What more do you want?

[TreasonousBastard]

59. Yeah, and how well did Gingrich's bright move work? It got...

him out of a job, for one thing. Bigshot could've stopped with his silly Contract and he might have managed to stick around for a while.

Albert had the backing of a bunch of Republicans for impeachment-- everyone wanted Nixon out at that point. And O'Neill also changed a lot of rules tthat ultimately gave him a lot less power than Albert had.

(Rule #1 in practical politics is do what's in your own best interest. If that's also in the public's interest, it's a bonus.)

[Hannah Bell]

58. she's POWERLESS! POWERLESS I tell you!!!

[GeorgeGist]

55. She's not a leader NOW or THEN.