Could Congress Have Spoken Out On Waterboarding?
A number of the best internet commentators are discussing today's news that a few of the leading Congressional Democrats may have been - probably were - briefed about the administration's plans to torture (waterboard, and maybe more) suspected terrorists being held in secret CIA facilities abroad. There's confusion about the facts, with few of the people allegedly briefed confirming the story. Notably, however, it appears that of those briefed, only Rep. Jane Harman objected. (Note that we're still at an early spin stage here - more facts about who said what to whom are likely to come out.)
The emerging consensus in the blogosphere seems to be that even if they had the presence of mind to object, the Representatives and Senators who were briefed were in a bind: as members of the Intelligence Committees or the leadership, they signed various secrecy pledges which stopped them from going public. To go public, it seems to be agreed, was to "jeopardize their careers and risk jail" as Kevin Drum put it; even so, Matthew Yglesias suggests that this called for civil disobedience, and that the representatives should have dared the administration to arrest them.
All this misses a critical aspect of our constitutional structure. Thanks to the Speech and Debate Clause there was a way for any Senator or Representative who wanted to blow the whistle to do so in a way that involved no risk of jail or fines - at worst they might have lost their security clearances (and even there the law is a little murky). Read on...
Would Jesus have kept his Mouth shut? Or would he go tell it on the mountain?
Glenn Greenwald has been ripping the leading Dems (especially Rockefeller) on this.
Oh, but you don't UNDERSTAND! I can see how a naive, irrational, puritanical so-called "independent" voter might think of this as the Democratic party actually covering up naked criminality, but what you don't understand is that if the Democrats had spoken out about this at the time, the Republicans would have made fun of them and then the Democrats might have lost some votes in the next election.
See, we sophisticated voters who REALLY CARE about getting good work done understand that the only thing, the only thing, that matters is electing more Democrats.
Besides, the Republicans would have just blocked any effort to ban waterboarding, so putting any such objection on the table would only have "stunt value." Other than that, it would have been a total waste of time to make any effort to get the facts on the record before the American people.
Starting to see it now, Dems? Starting to see it?
You're in bed with evil. You know it. The fact that the other guys are more enthusiastic about being evil doesn't mean you're not in bed with evil.
Thank You C&L. Let's hold these people accountable.
Weren't they just briefed? I thought they weren't allowed to even ask questions. That GW's crew came in and read to them and they had to sit there and shut up.
Not an excuse, that thought that they would allow themselves to be treated this way, and us through them, is pathetic. reprehensible. The fact that the repugs were in charge and had the dems hands ties is appalling, and forgotten.
Well the publicans were in control of congress, and more than likely they were all sworn to secrecy. Any breach of that oath could have them facing charges of impeachment and considering the period treason.
Meanwhile booshco goes merrily along.
Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley said today that a crime or criminal activity cannot qualify as a State Secret. The entire responsibility of the Intelligence Committees is to provide oversight. If they see something illegal, they are required to speak up about it and no one can prosecute them for revealing something that they were sworn to secrecy about.
The secrecy provision is no longer binding if the subject of the disclosure is to report a crime.
Could of, would of, should of .........
Doesn't matter, what was done and is being done is what matters, we know they are guilty to the rotten core of inaction, they were voted in to do it.
ysbaddaden @ 6:
Exactly. You can get in trouble for standing up for what is right.
Who wants to make a sacrifice for a country that doesn't give a crap that it is goign down the toilet? Ooooh Britney!
Would Patrick Henry be as enthusiastic today as he was in his time? I doubt it.
They could have objected in the same way Sen. Rockefeller did to the wiretapping.... He signed a classified memo and put it in a safe (for all the good that did....)
The values voters and the religious right have broken our moral compass.
The MSM would have butchered any dems that disclosed any information. Remember, they are corporate media. It would have killed dems of any chance of ever gaining control. Think about who is the real enemy.
My mind is still trying to deal with all this.
I have always believed that BOTH parties are responsible for this horrible failure in leadership. Fuck the Republicans, we know what they are. The democratic leadership Nancy, Harry, etc. have totally failed us. They laid down like five dollar meth whores.
The Dems could have spoken up if they had decency and courage. They have neither.
Could they have been prosecuted for revealing "state secrets" (crimes committed by the government that they want hidden?) Sure. And now they should be prosecuted for participating in a coverup.
Ron@12 So you condone leaders being cowards? You have low self-esteem.
Looks like Nancy Pelosi is on the list of those who kept their mouth shut as well...
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Pelosi_did_not_object_to_waterboarding_1209.html
I'm all for Cindy Sheehan taking her place in Congress.. http://www.cindyforcongress.org/
We have taken refuge in euphemisms. "Enhanced," sometimes "aggressive" interrogation techniques—or, the latest offering of a CIA spokesman, "special methods of questioning"—are, deliberately, verbal anesthetic. In the wake of the last great war to save civilization, George Orwell taught us to distrust euphemisms. Always and without exception, they are designed to dull us to the truth. Those CIA videos would have stripped anyone who saw them of that comfortable distancing—confronted everyone who viewed them with the unimaginable reality of what the U.S. government has authorized in our name.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/75104
Destroying these tapes was a coverup. No doubt about it. Somewhere somehow it would have been leaked. No way could they have that tape out there proving "we don't torture" bush a liar.
BTW Scooter must have gotten the thumbs up for his pardon. Why else does he all of the sudden decide he doesn't need to appeal his case? All of the sudden it doesn't matter that he was "unfairly" convicted? Yeah right.
Left&Left @ 16:
unnecessary. if he had low self-esteem he wouldn't have said anything. be decent.
I hate to (in part) repost, but this is more germane to this thread than the one it was originally posted in:
The neocons may be the prime movers of this sort of behavior - but the dems were more than along for the ride. The dems have failed us - again. Look at their track record: no withdrawal from Iraq/no meaningful oversite or hearings into illegal eavesdropping or torture/ trying to give telecoms amnesty as a cover-up, etc. Progressives in this country have no representation.
The bottom line is that most of them (not all) are spineless little politicos, and the coddling they receive from the progressive electorate is exactly what we don't need.
Our "representatives" were and are total cowards. They have betrayed this country, they have betrayed us. They share the guilt. We have been betrayed by those we elected to defend and protect the Constitution.
There is enough guilt to go around. As Martin Luther King said "we will not only be remembered by the words we speak, but also by our silence when we should have spoken." The cowards should have spoken up for the good of THEIR country, for the good of OUR country.
pissed off patricia @ 13:
Well hurry up Patricia. We need you on the front lines of taking our country back!!! ASAP :)
Okay, suppose for a moment that their "hands were tied" and there was "nothing they could do."
Are you satisfied with that? Are you satisfied supporting a political party that, time and time again, finds themselves with their hands tied on matters of fundamental human rights?
If you're going to support a powerless, impotent, ineffective party, shouldn't you support one that's powerless, impotent and ineffective because they HAVEN'T been elected to high office?
How many excuses are you ready to accept? How much further down the rabbit hole will you go? How many more apologies are you willing to make for people who are...
...NOT DOING WHAT YOU ELECTED THEM TO DO?
And if the answer is more and more and more and more and more until no Republican draws breath, then let me ask, on what basis do you smirk at the fundies who consistently get half a loaf from the Republicans on their real core agenda? What fools are they compared with you?
Suckers.
There should be a kitten/puppy test for these people.
If it simulated drowning is "okay" for people, no doubt every politician will claim to own ONLY goldfish.
And why is it that the Democrats always find themselves with their hands tied?
When the Republicans had power, there was "nothing they could do" even though they had 40 senators the way the Republicans do now.
Now that they have power, there's "nothing they can do" because the Republicans have 40 senators, the way the Democrats did back when there was "nothing they could do."
What if, and I'm just spitballing here, but what if this "there's nothing we can do" excuse, which seems to slip and slide all over the power map and always seems to land on double-zero for the Dems no matter WHAT the outcome, is just a lie lie lie lie lie used to keep you trapped so you will keep voting for an impotent party and not create a, heaven forbid, REAL progressive movement in this country.
Suppose that were true. How would life be different than it is today, where clearly that isn't true.
Clearly the Democratic party stands and fights for progressive values in this country.
Clearly they do.
But what if they weren't? What would that seem like?
And here come Paul in LA to defend his mistress in 3..2..1..
Wasn't Harmon the one thrown under the bus by Pelosi when it came time to appoint intel committee chair? If so, they are said to hate each other, and I always wondered why. Don't know for certain whether this has anything to do with it, but it sure adds some context.
Seems to me Nancy is conflicted out by this and needs to go. "Impeachment is off the table" indeed.
"We do not torture." GW Bush, Signing Statement: "MUCH".
Oh so NOW the Constitution is important? The Constitution protects those in Congress if they speak?
Um, as far as I can tell, NOBODY (except one) in Congress is following the Constitution. Everyone (except one) has wiped their ass with it at some point in time.
Democrats and Republicans (except one) have all, at least once, violated the Constitution at some time or another.
If the Consitution is supposed to be followed, it must be followed to a tee. If it isn't, then the argument that whistleblowers are to be protected by the Constitution is MOOT and IRRELEVENT.
You can't cherry pick what is in it, because then it becomes subjective, and then anyone could later on come up with a reason why another part should be violated.
I'm sorry, but we can't say that the Constitution will protect these members of Congress. They are not protected because the current Congress is not upholding the Constitution at all.
they were set up.....with their hands tied behind their back.....then at a time of their choosing they leak the info.....this isn't the first time they've pulled this move....this is how the repugs work.
Dude @ 28:
Amen Dude
These Francoists need to be stopped. Our party's afraid of corporate donors and the "serious" beltway bumpkins to stop the giggling murderer
Dude @ 28:
Sure you can. Democratic party loyalists on this very board have argued that the ONLY important issue is getting more Democrats elected.
If defending the constitution means hurting Democratic electoral chances, then the electoral concerns trump, period.
That's what comes of believing that the power game is more important than the exercise of that power.
It's the same argument Bush uses to destroy the constitution in his hunt for "the terrorists."
It's wrong when he uses it and it's wrong when liberals use it.
Orangutan. @ 22:
pissed off patricia will never make it to the front line... until she quits payin her income tax. as it is now she is giving her money to support this kind of illegal war/police state torture shit we are seein right now.
yeah...the front line is a little further up.... keep comin...I'll be waitin'
The Democrats are nothing more than modern day whigs.
So, let us be clear: if you vote for a Democrat, you are supporting a political party which is actively seeking to subvert the constitution of the United States of America by action and inaction.
Refute.
Orangutan. @ 17:
Has anyone on this site, besides me, actually read the entire "Discourse.Net" posting
as highlighted in blue above(lead-in); including the Blogger's who have posted their
comments? This is not a black and white issue, but has many shades of gray, so before
we jump the gun and assume that Nancy or any of the others reportedly attending the
CIA briefing are incompetent by their silence, a person should read the entire Dioscourse Article.
JasonS @ 36:
Democrats voted for the patriot act...shall I continue?
So, may we now safely dispense with all this "the Democrats aren't as bad as the Republicans" nonsense?
It may well be that one odious political party is "not as bad" as another, but that's hardly a recommendation for my most precious vote, which I guard jealously.
An alcoholic may not be as bad a a chronic gambler, but you shouldn't marry either without knowing what you're getting into.
ABC has the exclusive interview of a CIA agent who captured and tortured Abu Zubayda. So much for the excuse of keeping indentities of covert operatives secret.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3978231&page=1
JasonS @ 36:
allow me to continue,
Ummm, here is a dastardly little law... voted for (unanimously) by house democrats just recently!http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/061207_b_wifi.htm
shall I continue? ...this is too easy...
So, a vote for a Democrat is a vote for a Republican. If you don't vote for some other party or independent candidate, you're just helping the Republicans.
Voting for a Democrat is worse than "throwing your vote away" on a third party. At least when you "throw your vote away" on the Greens or Libertarians or whoever, you're not actively giving support to someone who will then go to Washington and betray you.
So, in '08, THE LEAST you can do is throw your vote away. Anything else is just supporting evil.
JasonS @ 25:
You know, you can't win at plunko on the Price is Right either.
JasonS @ 3:
Yep, I think you've pretty much captured it.
wmholt @ 7:
I was thinking the same thing. They should have no legal problem exposing classified information if it is a crime. Torture is a crime, but even more clear, I heard that they were informed that the videotapes would be destroyed. That would absolutely be a crime.
I want to know who knew what, and I want to know right now. Whoever knew that torture and obstruction of justice was occurring should be removed from office and prosecuted. There are no Republicans and Democrats among them; there are just felons.
JasonS @ 42:
I did that already. I'm voting in the primary and hoping I don't have to vote for the lesser of two evils.
There are good democrats and bad ones. I don't know of any progressive Republicans.
I don't vote in Nevada, so I can't do much about Reid. But I can send money to Feingold, and Kucinich, and Barney Frank, etc.
OK, I know you're all HUGE Jane Harmon supporters, but how is it that the Blue Dog pro-Iraq war representative is supposedly the honorable one?
Glenn Greenwald is all upset the Speaker replaced Harmon with Reyes -- but at least Reyes, like Murtha, wants to withdraw the troops.
As for why the Speaker stripped Harmon of her Intelligence Committee participation (and especially leadership) -- it was not because she was worried about torture. She has voted all along to greenlight whatever makes El Segundo and Hawthorne and Torrance aerospace companies MORE MONEY.
We tried to remove her in 2006, took 30% of the vote (which shocked Harmon), but the district is gerrymandered with the aerospace corps. That candidate, Marci Winograd, now has $100,000 in debts to retire. She's a strong candidate, but she's too far in debt to run against Harmon this next election -- maybe some rich Westside liberal can help her get back into shape for a challenge.
So, I LOVE the propaganda. I love Glenn Greenwald who doesn't recall WHY Harmon was slighted, and how horrible Chairman Reyes is compared to the Blue Dog that screws us on every vote. And I love how concerned the WaPo is about torture -- after they failed to report everything, 'covering' it in depth of horseturds mountain-high. I love the leftists who attack Conyers and Pelosi because they are the easy targets, while ignoring the Rapepublicans who took over the gov't through vote-fraud, and continue to pollute our Congress. Well, you have to have enemies, after all -- why make the real enemies your enemies? Pelosi and Conyers aren't 'crooks or liars' -- but why should that matter?
What we all have to understand is that these people that knew about the torture and decided to keep quit are the real traitiors to a democracy. These are the real chiken shit in this country. And, we still elect them, how pathetic are we? We just get what we deserve and we gotten it. Now we have to deal with it and the future which, does not look too bright since we have brought out all of the fearmongers and the fearful people. Good luck to all.
Weaseldog @ 1:
Did Jesus get anthrax? What about his kids?
insanity n. the compulsion to repeat behaviors in expectation of differing results
Oh, right, we just need to elect MORE Democrats. Forgot. Then everything will be great. Unlike now.
gonzalez @ 48:
That's RIDICULOUS. Bushco killed a million people in Iraq. Compared to that, 'torture' is a small item.
Get real.
JasonS @ 50:
Elect SOMEBODY, Jason. You lot bitch and moan about the Democrats and the two-party system, but alternatives don't represent an option, just a spoiler.
How many leftists in Congress? Maybe one or two. What do you plan on doing with one or two representatives? Get real.
Ron @ 12:
I think it's crystal clear who the real enemies of this country are. People just like you and your partners in crime on the GOP side of the fence. How embarrassing to know that I have to share a country with maggots like you.
JasonS @ 42:
OK, that is just brilliant. Hats off!
Rasputin @ 53:
Over that fairly reasonable analysis they are 'maggots'?
Wow, how honored we are to be in Rasputin's presence. How many maggots bow to you when you walk down the road, eh?
Old Billy @ 45 "They should have no legal problem exposing classified information if it is a crime."
Are you fucking kidding?
Let us know when you get out of kindergarten.
Why are you all so quick to pounce on the democrats as if they are worse than the republicans? Remember Pelosi said she was "briefed" on what techniques the lawyers and CIA and DOJ had found "legal" that they would be using in the future but had not been using at that point. Harmon the next year gets a briefing on what they had been using since the last briefing and she objected and wrote the letter. For all those complaining how she should have been a whistleblower etc, remember she signed a paper for secrecy and that oath has already been discussed when the first Rockefeller letter in his safe became known. Do any of you seriously believe that the Bush administration would NOT have prosecuted them and found them guilty of releasing secret classified info and either they would be jailed or lose their seat in Congress? They are not quite on the same footing as Scooter LIbby here who would be exhonerated with a get out of jail card and soon to be pardon whenever that happens..
It is so sad to see that republicans and the White House have you all pegged so easily that all they had to do was leak this so called reliable info to the Washington Post and now you are all eating your own as if the topic is now what Pelosi knew rather than the CIA destroying the tapes. Why do you not see that you tend to get suckered every time! Do you hink this little tidbit of Pelosi knowing just fell out of the sky at an opportune time on a Friday night?
Can't you all get back to the real issue of the CIA destroying tapes and stop the feeding frenzy that is nothing more than a republican distraction that you all seem to have swallowed so easily.
Orangutan. @ 17:
Which will make DLC Steny Hoyer the Speaker.
Could you TRY to do the math BEFORE you elevate the DLC to leadership?
Complaining about the 'corporate' part of the party is one thing. Elevating them over the Progressive does not seem to fit into the crevices in your thought. Maybe they are "all the same!"
In which case, I recommend a plastic bag over the head, relatively painless.
foreign visitor @ 57:
You have pretty well grasped the real politics, but the leftists here think that throwing away their vote is "the least they can do" and doing as little as possible is the leftist way.
Luckily, the electorate does not read the blogs, and the newspapers don't write history. Oh, and leftists never elect anyone -- they just whine for spoilers every two years like clockwork.
milquetoast @ 34:
And coining her own money, don't forget that.
And getting rid of all her pennies!
God, I hate pennies. They make me feel dirty.
Dude @ 29:
The current Congress is it? What about the Republican THUG-led 109th, and the 108th, which engaged in treason?
What about the 105th and 106th which were led by Newt Gingrich as he RAPED the impeachment clause for everything is was worth?
Clearly Dude, you do not abide. Or, you have a very short memory.
Hi PiL, knew you couldn't help but come to your clubs rescue!
Such a fan boy.
Paul in LA @ 52:
I expect the people I vote for to raise their hands and object when they are briefed on violations of the constitution that also happen to violate human rights.
Myself, I tend to vote mostly Democratic with a little Green. I am now considering abandoning the Democratic party for good and all because I have become convinced that they are behaving in an illegal manner.
I don't care if I end up with only two representatives. I'm not far left. I'm not asking for sweeping social overhauls. I'm asking for baseline conformance to the goddamn law and you're goddamn right I'm goddamn angry that my representatives, including Nancy Pelosi who I have voted for my ENTIRE LIFE thank you very much Mr. "go caucus with your two friends," are...
...VIOLATING THE LAW!!! VIOLATING HUMAN RIGHTS!!! CAPITULATING TO BULLYING!!! BETRAYING MY CORE VALUES!!!
What does it TAKE for you to fucking HEAR THAT?!?
I. Will. Not. Vote. For. ANYONE. Who. Turns. A. Blind. Eye. To. Torture.
I don't care if the rest of the country will. I don't care if I'm alone in the dark. I don't care if everyone thinks I'm insane. Those are my values, and I'm sick to fucking death of being lectured about how I have to "get real" and go along to get along with
torture
illegal war
illegal wiretapping
indefinite detention
false diplomacy
religious mania
violations of human rights
international isolationism
paranoid fearmongering
And everything else the Democrats have willingly gone along with.
And to answer your question, I'm voting Green for one whole election cycle. Flat out Green unless the Green candidate is a crook or a liar.
I'm not your base. You don't own me. You have to convince me.
Hey PiL, you aren't making friends and convincing people (again).
We talked about this before, didn't we?
And you called me names.
Now, let me ask you this, Paul:
What are you so afraid of? If those of us who would bolt the party over a teensy little thing like knowingly allowing the administration to violate basic human rights in direct violation of both the Constitution and black-letter law constitute a mere crazy fringe with no hope of developing any real power welll...
...then...
...that means our paltry little sum of all votes won't amount to much and you and your big hair caucus can continue doing alllllll the good work you've been doing.
What threat do we constitute if we have no hope of providing any alternative?
What...threat?
He's worried that we will point out the emptiness of his clubs position and it's complicity in the charade we are dealing with.
He is afraid that the truth of this will make it easy for us to peel off votes from the status quo.
He is afraid that he is a fan boy of a club that actually works WITH the Repugs instead of against them.
He is afraid of the truth.
Symes @ 62:
Hey, man, you saluted a flag you no longer believe in, and put on a uniform for a service you despise.
I'm WAY behind you in kissing ass, Symes.
JasonS @ 65:
Ask leading questions much?
Paul in LA @ 67:
You are presumptuous PiL, this was a different country when I served and I saluted a flag I admired and wore that uniform proudly.
You on the other hand hide behind the glory of your ancestors.
You are really bad at this attack game you try to play with me, not good at it at all.
Perhaps you shouldn't even try, it's not your gift fan boy.
You're falling into the right wing trap. The wingnuts are using the "Democrats knew about it too" defense to the revelations this past week that the CIA destroyed its torture videotapes after being instructed not to do so, and then lied to the 9/11 Commission and others about their existence. We can and should have a debate about the illegality of waterboarding and other forms of torture, and we should hold those who knew that such torture was taking place accountable, but that has zero to do with the immediate issue of the CIA's obstruction of justice in destroying the torture tapes.
Media Concepts @ 70:
That is a very important issue as well, and needs to be addressed.
But I doubt it will be given that the current Congress has been in session for a full year now and nothing has changed.
It is as though we voted in Repugs anyway.
What we debate should have no bearing on what Congress investigates, and this is not the CIA thread.
Mark Mazzetti (one of the NYT reporters who broke the story) was on NPR today. It's definitely worth listening to.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17100120
This quote doesn't have anything to do with *objections to torture*, but it is DEFINITELY something worth keeping in mind regarding CIA intentions and accountability:
"...several Republicans and Democrats advised the CIA against destroying the tapes. Porter Goss who was the top, uh, Republican on the house intelligence committee, and Jane Harman who was the top Democrat both said don't, don't destroy the tapes - i just wanted to clarify that one point"
Paul in LA @ 68:
Evade much?
Look, your people are violating the law. All's well and good if you want to support them...plenty of good people support the Democratic party including myself under normal circumstances.
But telling those of us who won't support what we see to be immoral and illegal that we need to "get real" and support YOUR point of view is condescending.
Of course strategizing around caucus and effectiveness is, under normal circumstances, the right way to look at the situation. I'm no knee-jerk idealogue who's been petulantly voting Green or Libertarian for years now risen to squawk and rail and chew my cud against the evil two-party system.
I'm a years long supporter of the Democratic party. Not dyed-in-the-wool...Democratic candidates need to earn my vote...but they usually get it.
But these are not ordinary times. Strategizing around caucus building is only valid if BOTH parties are playing the game with good will....as in not conspiring to violate the constitution.
In this case, we're seeing manifest criminality on the part of both parties. To tell us that we "have no choice" because there are "no other options" may in the end be true but it's no reason to expect anyone with any character to simply capitulate to that kind of bullying.
Or is that it? Have you become so inured of constant Democratic capitulation that you expect that you can abuse others the way the Republicans have abused you? That we'll lie down and fold the way your party has?
Can you honestly say that you have no problem voting for someone who actively concealed illegal torture?
Where's the line, then? What crime can the Democratic caucus turn a blind eye to that would lose you?
Murder?
Rape?
Unauthorized use of nuclear weapons?
How far can the Republicans push you?
The emerging consensus in the blogosphere seems to be that even if they had the presence of mind to object, the Representatives and Senators who were briefed were in a bind: as members of the Intelligence Committees or the leadership, they signed various secrecy pledges which stopped them from going public. To go public, it seems to be agreed, was to “jeopardize their careers and risk jail” as Kevin Drum put it.
**************************************
Be that as it may, the fact nevertheless remains that there are times when it becomes important for someone to be willing to put his or her personal freedom on the line for the cause of ethics and justice, particularly if they're in a position of leadership. It's a lot to ask of someone, no question -- it requires great courage because it involves tremendous sacrifice. Nevertheless, many of those people who have been able to find that depth of courage within themselves have not simply made a real difference -- they've made history, and have often changed history as well. Think of people like Gandhi, or Mandela. Sometimes, unfortunately, the only way for things to change is when someone is willing to go to jail for the sake of what's true and/or what's right. For that matter, on a lesser scale, what about people like Daniel Ellsberg -- the former State Department official who was responsible for leaking the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War? He was willing to go to prison because he believed strongly that the United States should not be in Vietnam...should he have kept quiet?
"Evil flourishes when good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
Watch my waterboarding video I edited on you tube. Watch closely?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHRD6AhySNY
Let's see, pretend your job is to protect the nation from foreign invaders. The CIA captures terrorists DIRECTLY TIED TO 9/11 and the Cole Bombing in early 2002. We are not talking A.Q. in Iraq or terrorists wannabes, we talking people DIRECTLY TIED TO 9/11 and the Cole captured in terrorist training camps in Afganistain. Humm... do you:
A) befriend them in the hope they may talk before the next attack.
B) have a public trial where you risk exposing your sources and methods.
C) make them talk by any means necessary.
Think about it before you answer.
Sparky @ 76:
Straw man BS.
Stick to reality please, 24 is a crappy TV show.
Sparky @ 76:
Suppose you pass laws giving the government broad authority to mistreat people on the basis of highly improbable nightmare scenarios and then the government begins applying these techniques to routine crimes.
Suppose you are arrested, innocent of any crime, but the government decides they want to torture you anyway.
To whom will you appeal? And on what basis?
I call BULLSHIT on these excuses. Any member of Congress can walk onto the House floor at the beginning of each daily session and give a one-minute speech about any topic they like. They cannot be sued or prosecuted in any way for what they say in the Chamber. They said nothing, which means Pelosi and Harman supported the torture of prisoners. I say to hell with all of them.
Very little difference between the dems and the republicans. Every single one of these lying bastards needs to be thrown the hell out of washington. I have tried to have faith in the dems, but they have proven to be little wussie compatriots with the republicans every step of the way. Everything from kneeling on the renewal of the patriot act (fucking habeus corpus thankyouverymuch) to covering up fucking waterboarding. Fucking waterboarding. THIS IS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND WE'RE DISCUSSING WHETHER OR NOT IT'S OK TO TORTURE PEOPLE.
Fuck. Shit Hell. Piss. WTF??????????
DEMS, YOU SUCK.
the national security apparatus has more clout than the house and senate now.
they've created a real-world Ministry of Love, where fear, torture and sadism are real. will the horror ever end?
Jelperman @ 79:
The self-righteous approach always feels best.
If you didn't know that the U.S. tortures, maybe you didn't know that the U.S. commits warcrimes, that the U.S. topples foreign governments, that the U.S. traffics arms, and landmines, and chemical weapons, etc.
If you thought this was a pure country, then you haven't studied much history, or had a good look at reality.
Beyond that, Pelosi being briefed on interrogations, interrogations which are given the green light by the justice system, does not mean she can violate her classification oath, especially during a rightwing coup. There is no evidence that waterboarding was included in the briefing she had, other than an assertion anonymously, and so your statement is both mindless, having no sense of context, and ignorant, having no facts substantiated.
You go and get classification, and then commit a felony blowing the whistle. Then we'll talk about how righteous you are, because now, having never had to face the issues involved, you know exactly how you would handle it, because you have the purity of a newborn babe.
Hype-Jersey @ 80:
Who in NJ(?) do you send to Congress? What is your ante into this pot?
My Representative is Diane Watson. She supports immediate impeachment, and immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Should I not vote for her (again)?
Who is it THAT REPRESENTS YOU that is such a 'lying bastard'? Because your problems begin at home, in your district, in who it is you send to Congress. Who is your bad representative, and why do you not work to change them out. Because Diane Watson is not the problem, and nor, I believe, is Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Waxman, or Chairman Conyers (or Reyes for that matter).
It is easy to blame a nameless group as if they were all the same. Indeed, that is a favored form of insanity around here. Name your player, and if it is someone worthy, then maybe you have a reason to complain. But if you send a stiff, do not expect the Dem caucus to turn them into a hero.
Yeah, look, I think this is at an early "spin" stage here. We're not hearing the details here, and they're the things that would be telling. Was Jane Harman the only one to object? Really? How do we know that? Might someone, not a Democrat, just want the Dems to look bad? I don't know, and I don't think anybody does. That's why we need to hear from a special prosecutor. Oh, Fitz!
.
Congress is staying mum because their tongues got all tied up with "OTHER" promises.
.
Sparky @ 76:
Easy. Befriend them. Make them realize they're never getting out of there. We got the Nazis to talk without torture. We prosecuted people when they waterboarded. One story about
Zubaydeh -- and who knows if it's true -- is that he was sent to the Saudis. They thought it would make him afraid. It didn't. He relaxed, and gave the telephone number of a Saudi prince, and three other names. These gentlemen ended up dying in odd ways on the same day.
I'm getting the uneasy feeling that there's a deception operation going on in the wake of the big leak, to blame the Democrats for what Bush did. Let's get the facts out, and not go off half-cocked.
Max-1 @ 86:
Torture is illegal. It is the JUSTICE SYSTEM'S duty to enforce the laws, not the Legislature, which has already made such acts illegal long ago.
Jim H @ 87 "I'm getting the uneasy feeling that there's a deception operation going on in the wake of the big leak, to blame the Democrats for what Bush did."
Gee, ya think?
And look at all the leftists, flocking to his aid in the coverup. Anything to bash the Dems.
They had a duty to engage in civil disobedience.
This is definately an attempt to shift focus away from the destroyed tapes and its obvious. The mainstream media wont care though.
I've always said both parties are in on it together and this just reinforces my opinion.
Having said that, I have a a big knot in my gut that leads me to believe this is the reason impeachment has been off the table all along. I think this is the smoking gun showing that the dems won't impeach because they KNEW it was happening and didn't even try to stop it until it broke in the media. I think they were afraid if the public found out they'd have some splainin to do. Now the public knows so they have nothing to hide behind or justify not impeaching these treasonous bastards.
They take a oath to protect the laws and once they the knew of water boarding was discovered and failed to speak out they should be tried for crimes. Any Congress person.
Paul in LA @ 83:
So you support these patently illegal actions then, by your own words they are no big deal and we should all just grow up and accept it. That the things you list in the first paragraph are international crimes is not a problem with you then, it's just what we do eh?
I always knew you were a douche fan boy, but now I know just what a low life you really are.
Your high ideals don't really amount to much there PiL, and not even close to the patriot you claim to be.
A patriot does the right thing for his/her country, not the right thing for his/her career.
Spare us your phony indignation, I'll be pulling this post out every time you try to pull the righteous Dem crap on us from here on out.
Paul in LA @ 89:
Shove it fan boy, you would cover up anything for your club so I don't rank you much better than any other Repug.
Paul in LA @ 61:
That sounds an awfully lot like a "but Clinton" to me. Individuals need to be judged on their own merits, not the actions of people before them.
Damn PiL, looks like a lot of other threads where you come running to the defense of your gang leaders.
One or two support your extremist fan boy BS, the rest of us who don't have our heads up our ass's just wonder WTF is wrong with you.
You want to know why I am leaving the country?
It is clowns like you.
You idiots are indistinguishable from the morons on the other side of the aisle. Same tactics, same BS, same coverups.
Two sides of the same coin.
And the fact you come running to defend your gang from exposure, sounding just like a Dem Rush, at ANY perceived slight that might make voters tell the Dems to go to hell just shows how little difference there really is between the gangs running these streets.
You are a Dem thug PiL, no better (or more proficient for that matter) than Pat Robertson in your spin and BS abilities.
And like I keep telling you, you are making no friends and winning no hearts by being such a total asshat.
Paul in LA @ 83:
Pelosi's oath is to the United States Constitution. Any promise that contradicts that oath in null and void, since government officials derive their just authority from the Constitution. So that excuse is bullshit.
Second, the fact that Pelosi hasn't come out and immediately refuted the claims in the article speaks volumes. If someone had accused me of egging on a war crime, I could at least issue a statement denying it. Before I sued the paper for libel. But then again, I would never consent by my silence to torturing people. That excuse is bullshit, too.
Announcing a war crime on the House floor is not a felony, for the simple reason that by the Constitution, it cannot be a felony. Member cannot be prosecuted or sued for what they say in the chamber. So that excuse is also bullshit. By the way, nice job of ignoring that point, fucktard.
Finally, I knew the Bush Junta would torture people, since it is led by a pair of demented sadists. I was surprised and disgusted to learn that a "San Francisco Liberal" would keep silent about it and help cover it up. I used to dismiss the Counterpunch types for claiming there's little if any difference. Not any more.
Paul in LA @ 88:
What a chickenshit answer! If you heard a Catholic priest say that he didn't blow the whistle on pedophilia in the Church that he knew about because it's not his job to enforce the law, you'd call him a smarmy liar at best and an accomplice after the fact to child molestation. For over sixty years, Americans have scorned the Good Germans who just "went along" with war crimes because they didn't want to rock the boat and it wasn't their responsibility to stop a crime in progress.
Anyone who takes that line is a moral coward at best.
Paul in LA @ 88:
unfortunately, it is the EXECUTIVE's duty to enforce the laws and the JUDICIARY's job is to rule on constitutionality and to interpret said laws.
some key things to remember here:
people with inside acdess to the booshinations going on were sworn to secrecy under penalty of imprisonment. Congress, being repug at the time, never disputed the constitutionality of that crap and thus allowed it to exist as de facto law. that scenario also applied to the illegal surveillance info given to select members of Congress and the senate. This also precedes Pelosi's tenure as Speaker.
to me, the biggest problems in this case are dems like rockefeller, who act more like repug insiders, and the lack of the 60 count majority in the senate which allows repugs to acquit in the senate anyone who is impeached for these offenses by congress. I'd also worry quite a bit about any supreme court interpretation of the legality of these issues.
Jelperman @ 97:
most of our elected officials are now elite and are more responsive to covering their own asses than taking any risks. they do not consider their role in history as 'good germans' and moral equivocators.
They all play for the same team -"Empire America"- goose-stepping across your country soon.
CoIntelPRo @ 99:
Justice System, Judiciary --laws!?-- in today's America????? YOU MUST BE JOKING.
CoIntelPRo @ 101:
Wow, well, have fun with your history books.
Hey, Guess What? Senator are "elite."
Who knew.
Paul in LA @ 104:
Not you apparently.
Comments are closed on this entry