Put Pelosi On Trial For Torturing The Truth

[BeAChooser]

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/05/023513.php

IN WHICH NANCY PELOSI TORTURES THE TRUTH

May 8, 2009

Nancy Pelosi has a tall tale regarding her lack of knowledge regarding the actual use of the enhanced interrogation techniques that President Obama and Pelosi's fellow Democrats condemn as "torture." Pelosi boldly denied she been so informed in the briefings she received as a ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. ... snip ...

"In that or any other briefing...we were not, and I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used. What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel...opinions that they could be used."

... snip ...

The Washington Post reports:

Intelligence officials released documents this evening saying that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was briefed in September 2002 about the use of harsh interrogation tactics against al-Qaeda prisoners, seemingly contradicting her repeated statements over the past 18 months that she was never told that these techniques were actually being used.

In a 10-page memo outlining an almost seven-year history of classified briefings, intelligence officials said that Pelosi and then-Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.) were the first two members of Congress ever briefed on the interrogation tactics. Then the ranking member and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, respectively, Pelosi and Goss were briefed Sept. 4, 2002, one week before the first anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The memo, issued by the Director of National Intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency to Capitol Hill, notes the Pelosi-Goss briefing covered "EITs including the use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah." EIT is an acronym for enhanced interrogation technique. Zubaydah was one of the earliest valuable al-Qaeda members captured and the first to have the controversial tactic known as water boarding used against him.

I insist that all those who knew about and approved the waterboarding of KSM and the other two terrorists face an American jury. I also insist that they show us, during that trial, whether the waterboarding worked and caused the 3 terrorists to reveal vital, life saving information that they'd resisted telling under conventional interrogation.

 

[TraneWreck]

I insist that all those who knew about and approved the waterboarding of KSM and the other two terrorists face an American jury. I also insist that they show us, during that trial, whether the waterboarding worked and caused the 3 terrorists to reveal vital, life saving information that they'd resisted telling under conventional interrogation.

You have real problems with documents, don't you?

First, I would gladly agree to prosecuting any and all people, regardless of political party, who knew about the waterboarding.

Unfortunately for you, Pelosi won't be one of them:

"The CIA first briefed Congress on torture on September 4, 2002, 35 days after CIA purportedly began waterboarding and much longer after we know CIA started torturing Abu Zubaydah. Moreover, we have on the record statements from Pelosi and Goss (and I've had even stronger assurances elsewhere) that CIA did not tell Congress they were already in the business of torture. Their discussions of torture were all prospective, and they may even have stated clearly that they had not used these techniques yet, which (if true) would be a clear and direct lie to Congress."

More information about the contents of the documents and the timing of the briefings:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2...ill-No-Proof-She-Was-Briefed-on-Waterboarding

As for whether important information was discovered, the criminality of a banned act is not determined by the success of said act. You are not exonerated from robbing a bank if you make a lot of money doing it.

This is yet another pathetic attempt on the part of right wingers to try and find shelter from the coming prosecutions by pretending that others were as morally bankrupt as they are.

Like everything else the right tries these days, it will fail. At least the teabaggers were funny.

 

[madurobob]

I insist that all those who knew about and approved the waterboarding of KSM and the other two terrorists face an American jury. I also insist that they show us, during that trial, whether the waterboarding worked and caused the 3 terrorists to reveal vital, life saving information that they'd resisted telling under conventional interrogation.

So, let me get this straight. When the CIA briefs congress it is almost always in a classified meeting. You feel Pelosi and others - IF they heard about water boarding being done -should have broken the law and gone public with what the CIA told them in a classified meeting? And am I to believe you would have supported her breaking the law to reveal this classified information?

 

[Skeptic]

I'm no fan at all of Pelosi, but if lying was a reason to put politicians on trial... can anybody ELSE see the flaw in this plan?

 

[Doctor Evil]

I'm no fan at all of Pelosi, but if lying was a reason to put politicians on trial... can anybody ELSE see the flaw in this plan?

It will stop being entertaining after the 27th trial?

 

[applecorped]

There will be no trials.

 

[WildCat]

So, let me get this straight. When the CIA briefs congress it is almost always in a classified meeting. You feel Pelosi and others - IF they heard about water boarding being done -should have broken the law and gone public with what the CIA told them in a classified meeting? And am I to believe you would have supported her breaking the law to reveal this classified information?

If they truly believe that the waterboarding was illegal and it is then there is no way they could be prosecuted for revealing classified information, because such laws do not protect illegal activities.

 

[madurobob]

If they truly believe that the waterboarding was illegal and it is then there is no way they could be prosecuted for revealing classified information, because such laws do not protect illegal activities.

But.. but... but... the president said we weren't doing anything illegal!

Really, though, I was trying to point out the disingenuous nature of the OP. Complaining that Pelosi didn't expose the waterboarding she apparently heard about in a classified briefing, when I'm pretty sure he would have been first in line with the tar and feathers and chants of "aid and comfort to the enemy" if she did.

 

[firecoins]

Pelosi did not need to "expose" waterboarding. She had the ability to object to its use. She had the power being a senior member of the house intelligence committee to object to its use. Maybe she could have stopped it, Maybe she couldn't. She raised no objections to the briefer, the president or anyone else.

 

[tyr_13]

Pelosi did not need to "expose" waterboarding. She had the ability to object to its use. She had the power being a senior member of the house intelligence committee to object to its use. Maybe she could have stopped it, Maybe she couldn't. She raised no objections to the briefer, the president or anyone else.

Wait, you were at these classified meetings? You know who objected to what? You know that she didn't object to the President?

Sweet.

Also, this is more relevant than what anyone else surrounding the used of torture did because? How about we try to go after the people who actually put together these plans to torture and carried them out. Oh that's right, because you don't like some other person and would love to use this as a way to attack political opponents.* See, that's my mindreading. Crazy **** huh?

*I obviously don't know why someone would care more about Pelosi's accused non-objection than the actual implementation of the torture.

 

[gumboot]

I have some questions. What sort of power or authority do these select committees have? Are they merely passive recipients of information? Can they give opinion? Or do they have some sort of legal authority? If so, how much?

Thanks.

 

[tyr_13]

I have some questions. What sort of power or authority do these select committees have? Are they merely passive recipients of information? Can they give opinion? Or do they have some sort of legal authority? If so, how much?

Thanks.

The committees go through specific information, read reports, generate reports, and make suggestions to their larger body, in this case the House.

They get more details than the rest of the House on intelligence matters. However, their legal authority is basically what information gets passed on to the rest of the body, and in what way.

This is my basic understanding of it, but I'm sure there is a hell of a lot more 'politicing' details that make it far more complicated.

 

[SezMe]

I have some questions. What sort of power or authority do these select committees have? Are they merely passive recipients of information? Can they give opinion? Or do they have some sort of legal authority? If so, how much?

Good but ultimately irrelevant questions. In the atmosphere - especially political - after 911 of "you're either with us or against us" there was no possible way for any politician to gain purchase with either the Bush Administration or with the public.

Those raising the Pelosi issue are only diverting attention from the real problem. Suppose she had vehemently objected to Bush and, especially, Cheney at the time. You think that would have changed anything? Of course not. Hell, eight years later and Cheney is still proud of his actions and is quoted as saying he wouldn't do it any differently.

And going public with confidential information - no matter how well intentioned she was - would have been political and media suicide. Can you imagine what Hannity/Rush/etc. would have said. My gawd, it would have been time for the tar and feathers.

No, Pelosi is a side issue here. Nothing more.

 

[gumboot]

Good but ultimately irrelevant questions. In the atmosphere - especially political - after 911 of "you're either with us or against us" there was no possible way for any politician to gain purchase with either the Bush Administration or with the public.

Those raising the Pelosi issue are only diverting attention from the real problem. Suppose she had vehemently objected to Bush and, especially, Cheney at the time. You think that would have changed anything? Of course not. Hell, eight years later and Cheney is still proud of his actions and is quoted as saying he wouldn't do it any differently.

And going public with confidential information - no matter how well intentioned she was - would have been political and media suicide. Can you imagine what Hannity/Rush/etc. would have said. My gawd, it would have been time for the tar and feathers.

No, Pelosi is a side issue here. Nothing more.

My questions are entirely relevant. Either these committees have some sort of authority (in which case they bear guilt) or they do not (in which case they cannot be held accountable).

It's pretty straight forward, really.

 

[SezMe]

My questions are entirely relevant. Either these committees have some sort of authority (in which case they bear guilt) or they do not (in which case they cannot be held accountable).

It's pretty straight forward, really.

In the black-and-white terms you desire, then, the answer is that no committee in Congress has "authority" over the Executive Branch. The only authoritative action that could be taken would be for Congress to withdraw the budget for the program in question...the WHOLE congress, not just the committee. Finally, even that "authoritative action" would have been a delusion because, as he often did, Bush would have simply issued a signing statement and gone on with his chosen course of action.

It's pretty straight forward, really.

 

[GreNME]

I insist that all those who knew about and approved the waterboarding of KSM and the other two terrorists face an American jury.

Do you only mean Democrats, or do you also mean the Republicans who also knew? You realize that this would include Bush and Cheney as well, right? Or is this just another post-n-run on your part?

Also, I think gumboot has a good point. Whether these politicians felt they might be putting their careers at jeopardy for standing up and objecting is, in my opinion, a piss-poor excuse if they actually had any legal authority. We don't elect these people into office to spend most of their time there trying to keep their jobs (and yet that's precisely what they do). On this kind of issue, I have absolutely zero problem with letting a strong message be sent through all of Congress: You serve at the pleasure of the people, you have no entitlement to that office. If you shut your mouth to keep your job, particularly when speaking up would be standing for the moral center of this nation, then keeping quiet is tantamount to criminal negligence at the least.

 

[INRM]

Obstruction of Justice charges might be appropriate too as she did keep shooting down any attempts at all to bring impeachment charges against Bush.

She may have done this not just because there were "worries that when the Democrats get in it could happen to their guy", but because her misconduct would be exposed during the course of the proceedings.


INRM

 

[SezMe]

In the black-and-white terms you desire, then, the answer is that no committee in Congress has "authority" over the Executive Branch. The only authoritative action that could be taken would be for Congress to withdraw the budget for the program in question...the WHOLE congress, not just the committee. Finally, even that "authoritative action" would have been a delusion because, as he often did, Bush would have simply issued a signing statement and gone on with his chosen course of action.

It's pretty straight forward, really.

gumboot, the analysis is correct but the snark is uncalled for. Sorry. I withdraw the unpleasantness.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm not sure there's a case of complicity for Pelosi for knowing but not speaking against torture. Even if there is, there are certainly a lot MORE guilty parties that were involved in setting and supporting these policies.

However, I do believe that knowing but not speaking against torture is enough that she should be drummed out of office and her political career ended for life.

 

[Brainster]

I'm not sure there's a case of complicity for Pelosi for knowing but not speaking against torture. Even if there is, there are certainly a lot MORE guilty parties that were involved in setting and supporting these policies.

However, I do believe that knowing but not speaking against torture is enough that she should be drummed out of office and her political career ended for life.

Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.