by publius
If the Republicans are so very anxious to find out about what Pelosi knew, why not ask them to support a truth commission on torture and detention to get to the bottom of this?
It just seems like this particular "outrage of the week" could be channeled in a fairly positive political direction. Yes, Mr. McConnell, a truth commission might document extensive and systemic war crimes, but it just might embarrass Nancy Pelosi… How 'bout it?
No argument from me here.
I’m good with this. Let it go wherever appropriate.
word
The only problem is we all know full well they’re not really outraged, or interested in finding out who knew what, even if it would embarrass Nancy Pelosi.
someone might be shocked to learn that Cheney doesn’t actually have the power to declassify the documents he says will prove torture worked.
that someone doesn’t know dick.
yes, of course there was a link in that last comment of mine.
whatever happened to moving ObWi to a non-aggravating server ?
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/05/14/1932361.aspx
Hear, hear.
Isn’t John Boehner — the Republican Minority Leader — suggesting exactly what you propose, Publius? See:
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/05/nancy_pelosi_cia_lied_boehner_1.html
Von,
That depends. From the link you provided:
Pelosi, for her part, renewed her call for a “truth commission” to investigate the Bush administration’s use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques and the legal arguments devised to support it…
Boehner says that if they want to get to the bottom of this, then fine, put everything on the table.
Someone needs to ask him if he’s serious about a truth commission, or just bluffing. If he’s serious, we need to take him up on this PRONTO.
I know it’s ridiculous to doubt Obama’s political savvy, but I have a theory: Obama’s major political calculation is wrong. His stated agendas on health, energy, and education would BENEFIT FROM a thorough airing of the torture issue.
The Cheney-Limbaugh GOP is not Obama’s only opposition on health, energy, and education — but it’s a major component. The more their lies are exposed and their paranoia discredited, on torture; the more they are shown to be cowards enough to rely on torture and craven enough to rely on torture for political justification of the Iraq war; the LESS credible they become as a respectable opposition party.
As for “embarassing” Pelosi, how is THAT supposed to work? “We tortured, but we had Nancy’s permission” sounds to me like an embarassing thing for macho men like Cheney and Limbaugh to be saying.
–TP
Cheney doesn’t have the power to declassify anything, nor did he attempt to. He simply made a request, which was just as simply denied.
Cheney doesn’t have the power to declassify anything
right. note that i didn’t imply otherwise.
Ok, then. Not sure why you brought it up.
// why not ask them to support a truth commission on torture and detention to get to the bottom of this? //
Why do you need their support? Dems control the committee chairmanships.
The stopped clock known as d’d’d’dave is correct on this one. Let’s have it out: hold Congressional hearings, in public, on the Dick and Dubya torture policies. Either the US is a sane nation, or it’s not. Let’s find out once and for all.
–TP
“Why do you need their support? Dems control the committee chairmanships”
Exactly. Hold hearings or quit banging this drum. You are in 100% control. You (D) have squashed all kinds of ethics hearings – most ethical Congress evah… Yada yada yada… Wow. The only transparency I’ve seen is that they are comfy being transparently corrupt.
You have the stick – bring it on. All you have to do is get your caucus in line and you can do whatever the hell you want to. Any. Damned. Thing. There is no way (R) can block it so let’s quit hearing about that. Sh!t or get off the pot! Bring it. Let’s see what important Dem’s knew and when they knew it.
OK. I feel better for the rant. It was a rant. 😉
“You (D) have squashed all kinds of ethics hearings”
Um, huh? Cite?
I supported a bipartisan investigation four years ago, and I still support one. Now if the Democrats can get the president on board.
The Dems are in charge. If they really want to do it, the GOP can’t stop ’em.
Am I missing something? That press conference had to be one of the dumbest moves I’ve seen in a while.
Let’s have it out: hold Congressional hearings, in public, on the Dick and Dubya torture policies.
As long as Congressional hearings lead to criminal trials, I concur. I think that anyone — any person from either party — who knew about torture and approved or was silent should be tried and, if convicted, sent away for a long, hard time.
If that includes Ms Pelosi, then she can think about her errors from the prison yard.
“As long as Congressional hearings lead to criminal trials, I concur.”
So no one can be given immunity to testify before Congress, or you wind up in a situation like Iran-Contra, where prosecutors had to prove that their info didn’t come from Congressional testimony.
“I think that anyone — any person from either party — who knew about torture and approved….”
As has been pointed out the last zillion times we’ve discussed this, no one in Congress had or has any ability to approve or disapprove anything put before the Intelligence Committee; the law only requires that they be informed; there’s no power to disapprove whatever.
If they really want to do it, the GOP can’t stop ’em.
The GOP? Don’t you mean “The Party of ‘No’?”
“the law only requires that they be informed”
Which isn’t to say the Bush Administration followed the law, of course. We know that they’ve told lots of things only to the Gang of Eight, or the Gang of Four, not the full committee, and what they haven’t told even the Four or the Eight, we don’t know. Whatever they’ve said is bound to be pretty cursory, just from SOP of the Bush administration.
” … and what they haven’t told … we don’t know.”
I will make a small bet with any self-respecting Republican or conservative here: MORE THAN 3 PRISONERS WERE WATERBOARDED.
Every single Cheney-supporting, torture-justifying, right-wing talking point has proved to be, at best, a modified limited hang-out. “We only waterboarded 3 guys” is a wingnut talking point. I’m betting the odds here.
–TP
“We know that they’ve told lots of things only to the Gang of Eight, or the Gang of Four, not the full committee”
I should also mention that there’s no provision in the law for this. It was originally done under extremely exceptional circumstances, such as when an imminent covert action was about to be performed, and such limited notification was supposed to be purely temporary and more or less for emergencies.
Under the Bush administration, this limited notification became, apparently, largely standard; this is an abuse of the National Security Act of 1947‘s congressional notification provision, Section 501:
There’s nothing in there about notifying less than the full committee, and notifying the full committee is required by the Act.
Note section 2 as regards these continued ignorant assertions that somehow the committee can approve or disapprove of what the executive/intelligence agencies choose to do or not do. They can’t. By law.
“…somehow the committee….”
Either the House or Senate Intelligence Committee, that is.
It just seems like this particular “outrage of the week” could be channeled in a fairly positive political direction. Yes, Mr. McConnell, a truth commission might document extensive and systemic war crimes, but it just might embarrass Nancy Pelosi… How ’bout it?
You could be right, Publius, but if the investigation only reveals waterboarding and the other techniques in the torture memos (that which we already know about) AND that Pelosi knew and Rockefeller knew, etc. this only hurts the dems. Republicans in the know have already taken the hit. Finding prominent dems morally culpable as well brings the added sting of hypocrisy.
Seeing Pelosi in a cage fight with the CIA is justification alone, IMO. Bring it on.
And to think I thought Obama releasing the memos was a mistake . . .
Republicans in the know have already taken the hit.
*looks around* Where are these Republicans who have “taken the hit”? In jail? Impeached? Hm. Do you just mean that they were publicly embarrassed by having the mainstream media fawning all over them saying of course it’s not torture?
Republicans keep mentioning Nancy Pelosi because they are the party of Damned If We’ll Take Responsibility For Anything. Because Bush & Co informed Pelosi and a handful of others that they had approved the use of torture, Republicans who have given up trying to blame Bill Clinton for everything that Bush did, now think they can blame Nancy Pelosi.
Testing from an exotic location in Middle America.
Open up all the records. We are smart enough to recognize truth.
End testing.
Great, let’s have this truth commission. But I agree with Boehner: It doesn’t just look at the Bush administration.
I mean, in South Africa, the model for truth commissions, the ANC had it’s dirty laundry aired, too.
I’ve been a “Cry Havok! and let loose the dogs of war!” type guy all along, I’d like to see the two major parties really tear into each other, release all blackmail files, fling all dirt, get it all out. The political ‘death’ toll would be fearsome, (Don’t kid yourselves, on both sides.) but our politics would be a lot cleaner afterwards.
“Open up all the records. We are smart enough to recognize truth.”
Just want to note that this represents a significant step forward in BOB’s understanding of the moral faculties of his fellow humans.
Well done sir.
“Republicans keep mentioning Nancy Pelosi because”
Republicans keep mentioning Pelosi because she’s a liberal Democrat from San Freaking-cisco, and they hate hate hate her.
Um Brett – have you seen anyone here say that the Dem’s are clean?
You know what – I not sure what would be better for the long term health of the country Obama’s plans or the purging (the latter which would, IMO derail any legislative progress). I prevaricate between the two and wonder how things would have been different had Nixon not been pardoned – and perhaps it is time to pay the price for that act.
“Um Brett – have you seen anyone here say that the Dem’s are clean?”
Not in so many words, usually, but the reaction when you interrupt the self-congradulation about how bad the Republicans are by pointing out that the Democrats aren’t exactly saintly… It gives that impression.
“…but the reaction when you interrupt the self-congradulation about how bad the Republicans are…”
That probably has something to do with the fact that it was a Republican administration that actually DID THE OBJECTIONABLE THINGS IN QUESTION. Personally, I think if Pelosi or anyone else is culpable, they should go down. It’s just that she wasn’t in charge of the branch of government that did the deeds, so one would assume fairly limited culpability on her part, and certaily LESS culpability than that of THE ONES WHO DID IT. (Sorry for the caps. But it seemed necessary.)
If we’re talking about everything under the sun, I’m sure there are individuals in both parties who are guilty of bad things. But I don’t think that’s what we’re talking about. It would be a pointlessly unfocused discussion.
“it was a Republican administration that actually DID THE OBJECTIONABLE THINGS IN QUESTION.”
Yeah, that probably has something to do with the fact that it’s the “executive” branch that “executes” policy. No matter who signs off on objectionable things, or how wide the agreement on doing them, it’s going to be the executive branch that actually does ’em.
You’d really like to think that torture was some kind of partisan abberation, rather than a bipartisan policy, wouldn’t you? I can understand wanting to believe that, I really can.
But that doesn’t mean believing it is reasonable.
You’d probably like to think that it’s stopped, too, I bet…
“No matter who signs off on objectionable things, or how wide the agreement on doing them, it’s going to be the executive branch that actually does ’em.”
Please see Gary Farber on May 14, 2009 at 10:11 PM.
“You’d really like to think that torture was some kind of partisan abberation, rather than a bipartisan policy, wouldn’t you? I can understand wanting to believe that, I really can.”
You’d really like to think that I’d really like to think that torture was some kind of partisan abberation, rather than a bipartisan policy, wouldn’t you? I can understand wanting to believe that, I really can. But that doesn’t mean believing it is reasonable.
“You’d probably like to think that it’s stopped, too, I bet…”
What decent person wouldn’t?
“Seeing Pelosi in a cage fight with the CIA is justification alone, IMO. Bring it on. “
I’m with bc. Let’s see the intelligence services try to cover their @sses by dragging members of Congress in.
If they think the stuff that came out of the Church hearings was too tight of a leash, can’t wait to see what comes out of them trying to hang the Speaker of the House out to dry.
I’ve got some popcorn.
The Sadist is feared most by prisoners because he wants more than information or a confession. He wants to torture his victims until there is no resistance or cries of pain. This might take many months. But once his victims becomes silent and do not scream in agony the Sadist loses interest. The prisoners becomes useless and the monster looks for healthy replacements. Those that were water boarded over one hundred times until silenced were the healthiest of the victims. It took many months to obtain their silence. They were broken, rehabilitated, and could go free.
“Let’s see the intelligence services try to cover their @sses by dragging members of Congress in.”
Yeah, let’s see it, I bet they succeed. I’ll tell you, if *I* were briefing members of Congress on something like that, you can be damned sure I’d get it on film. I doubt I’m more paranoid than the people running the intelligence services.
Yeah, let’s see it, I bet they succeed. I’ll tell you, if *I* were briefing members of Congress on something like that, you can be damned sure I’d get it on film. I doubt I’m more paranoid than the people running the intelligence services.
Given that they can’t even get the dates on which they briefed Senators correct, I think you’re making a bad bet. The CIA has repeatedly deceived Congress and evaded oversight throughout its entire history; it seems comically naive to believe that the CIA became boy scout troop after 9/11.
“I’ll tell you, if *I* were briefing members of Congress on something like that, you can be damned sure I’d get it on film.”
How excellent would that be?
My guess is that the intel agencies wish they’d never opened this particular can of worms.
Bring it on, and we’ll see who blinks first.
“I’ll tell you, if *I* were briefing members of Congress on something like that, you can be damned sure I’d get it on film. I doubt I’m more paranoid than the people running the intelligence services.”
Is it that you think the Gang of Four or Gang of Eight would have asked for, or agreed, to be filmed, for unstated reasons, or that you think the CIA would have filmed them secretly, from miniature cameras on their suit lapels?
And all this to demonstrate that people who have no power to approve or disapprove what they’re informed of were informed? And with no fear of Congressional retaliation in general?
This strikes me as unlikely. However, I’m sure that if I asked you if you had a cite to any person in a position to know ever suggesting such a thing has ever taken place, you’d laugh at the idea of having to bother to give a cite, when your imagination is ever so much more reliable.
“…and evaded oversight throughout its entire history….”
Do you have any cites to point to of the CIA deceiving Congress and evading oversight between 1975 and 1981, or 1987-2000?
Alas Gary, I don’t. I’ll be happy to stipulate those time periods as an exception to my larger claim.
The CIA has repeatedly deceived Congress and evaded oversight throughout its entire history; it seems comically naive to believe that the CIA became boy scout troop after 9/11.
Not to mention the Bush Administration’s seething contempt for Congressional oversight in general, and on national security measures in particular. I highly doubt that CIA was informing congress of what it was doing at any level of detail.
“I’ll be happy to stipulate those time periods as an exception to my larger claim.”
I’ll be happy to stipulate the other time periods as within your larger claim. I was just quibbling over “throughout its entire history.” I have no reason to think that from the middle of Colby’s term, and the beginning of William J. Casey’s, and from the end of Casey’s until the beginning of the Bush Administration, deception of Congress was going on.
I’m certainly not excluding the possibility, of course; I just don’t know of any actual suggestions that it happened.
“And all this to demonstrate that people who have no power to approve or disapprove what they’re informed of were informed? And with no fear of Congressional retaliation in general?”
I think we have a very different conception of the power Congressional leaders have with respect to executive branch agencies. As opposed to their willingness to use it.
“I think we have a very different conception of the power Congressional leaders have with respect to executive branch agencies. “
It seems pretty clear, to me, that at the time the folks in question were briefed, the things they could do with that information were pretty limited.
Not anymore.
Hoekstra asked the CIA to produce the information about the briefings. The CIA produced that information with a cover letter stating that they could not guarantee its reliability or accuracy.
The Republicans then began using it to try to beat Pelosi et al, but especially Pelosi, about the head and shoulders.
Pelosi doesn’t appear to be interested in taking any sh*t from them.
My guess, based on the weasel words included in their cover letter, is that the CIA wishes they’d never gotten involved in this.
So, we’ll see who blinks first.
“I think we have a very different conception of the power Congressional leaders have with respect to executive branch agencies. As opposed to their willingness to use it.”
Brett, I’ve bothered to cite and quote Section 501: did you bother to read it? I’ve quoted the law. As usual, you’re putting your imaginary “conception” up against a cited fact. How about responding to the cite?
Additionally, Brett, to support your “conception,” go ahead a cite a single case of the Gang of Eight or Gang of Four ever — somehow — vetoing or preventing a covert action.
Which part of this is unclear? When was this ever violated?
I’ll wait right here for you to support your “conception” with a verifiable fact.
I say bring it, and let the chips fall where they may.
Embarrassing Pelosi to collect evidence to prosecute Cheney, et. al. is a trade I’m willing to make.
Why Act Surprised? Pelosi and Reid Are Accomplices In Bushs War Crimes
On the revelation that Nancy Pelosi was possibly consulted about torture techniques, namely waterboarding, by the Central Intelligence Agency as early as 2002, one thing has confounded me: Would you be so surprised if she had and do you really feel baf…