Randi is discussing the CIA tapes - This explains EVERYTHING!

[debbierlus]

Pelosi knew they were torturing. No wonder impeachment is off the table, it would mean her resignation. She was BRIEFED in 2002.

Nancy needs to resign. Bush needs to resign. Cheney needs to resign. This is a scandal of EPIC proportions. Probably the biggest in our history. BOTH parties are culpable.

It is disgusting. Basically, the dems decided to protect their own political ass instead of exposing the torture. And, in turn, the Bush administration was able to blackmail them. There has been speculation for a long time the dems were being blackmailed, though most of us thought that it was their personal lives that were being held over their heads, NOT their own culpability in the Bush administration's torture policies.

It all fits. ALL of it. The dems can't impeach without bringing down their own leadership. Thus, they lose their entire ability for oversight of a criminal Presidential administration who have absolutely no scruples.

Randi just stated this is going to be the topic for the entire next hour, it is now 4:00 p.m. Stream on airamericaradio.com. She is having legal experts on that explain the scope & implications of it. I, myself, did not really understand what was going on until I listened in today.

Unbelievable. :nuke:

[BuyingThyme]

1. Before this horrible little thread gets locked:

Thank you, Debbierlus!

:applause:
:woohoo:

[debbierlus]

8. Why on earth would this get locked?

Is that what has been going on here? I haven't been really following to close due to a chaotic couple of weeks at home.

I thought the reason that we were dems & not repukes is because we HOLD OUR LEADERSHIP accountable. If we can't walk the walk, we are absolutely no better then those who support Bush & co.

Country over party over & forever. Can't we just stop being labeled by a party, & stand up for what is right?

[BuyingThyme]

15. We're not allowed to discuss why, but for your reference,

see the editorial at the bottom of this brilliant thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2067961

[fascisthunter]

56. wow... That's Messed Up (nt)

[Kikosexy2]

81. We must push...

for Pelosi's ouster...she must GO!!!

[Occam Bandage]

26. Many people like to post flamebait, and then when it's locked,

they claim there's a conspiracy to silence them.

[Lerkfish]

44. well, if it does, you'll know why.

and extrapolate.

[Gonnuts]

93. Look, it's the DEMOCRATIC Underground for a reason ...

but one has to stop being so partisan from time to time to not believe the elements, if not the majority, of the Democratic Party aren't now, if not always, as corrupt as the Republicans.

At what point is it okay to compromise with the devil? And once done is not all else compromised? At the point when the Democratic leaders became aware of the evidence of torture it would necessitate that they expose and stop it right there. They didn't and are therefore as guilty. If I had a roommate holding someone against their will and did nothing I too would be as guilty of kidnapping. It's not a hard case to figure out. Anyone aware of a crime being committed that does nothing to stop said crime is by law an accomplice in the breaking of said law.

But I'm not sure it was the torture that was exposed of why they keep quiet, we've already had many incidents of torture documentation, as it is what was exposed about the truth of 9/11 on these tapes. That to me is the REAL snake in the grass here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-posner/the-cias-destroyed-inter_b_75850.html

[Whisp]

42. BuyingThyme- your locked thread was about wiretapping,

this one about torture.
i'm a bit confused.
can you explain?

[Lerkfish]

45. what is the common denominator, I think is his point.

put on your thinking cap

[BuyingThyme]

89. Whenever the truth comes out about Pelosi, people attempt

to keep it out of this forum.

[Gonnuts]

94. Total partisan-ism

... is an UGLY thing to behold ...

[Cronopio]

76. If this thread is locked, I will reconsider my decision to contribute to DUs next fund drive.

If we can discuss anything here but possible Dem complicity in Bush's crimes, then DU is on par with the DailyKos in playing the DLC gatekeeper role.

This is *precisely* the kind of thing that needs to be discussed on this forum.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ray of light]

6. knock it off. n/t

[ray of light]

9. Jonathan Tourelli's list of crimes--6 indictable offenses

1. Original crime of torture--ordering torture of a suspect
2. Obstruction of Justice
3. Obstruction of Congress
4. Perjury
5. conspiracy
6. false testimony before Congress

He said it was "Much worse than what started Watergate."

Check Roll Call.

[debbierlus]

16. Thank you...do you have a link?

[ray of light]

46. No. Sorry. I took notes as they were talking!!! (Can you believe it?!!!)

It was like I was in school again.

[King Coal]

3. Impeachment can never be off the table by definition.

Fuck it.

[Freddie Stubbs]

96. So, it actually IS on the table right now?

:shrug:

[ray of light]

4. She interviewed Jonathan Tourelli (spelling?) a conservative GWU Law Prof.

[in_cog_ni_to]

10. Jonathan Turley.

:hi: He's BRILLIANT!

[Manifestor_of_Light]

20. He said there were 6 to 12 crimes involved.

Jonathan Turley is a Constitutional law scholar/law professor.

Yes, he is brilliant!

[ray of light]

47. Thanks! I wrote it out phonetically while I took notes.

I was shocked hearing her list of the documents Bush and the evil ones have already destroyed!

[leftchick]

63. Jonathan Turley Consitutional Lawyer

http://www.law.gwu.edu/faculty/profile.aspx?id=1738

And Keith's best guest for over two years now.




Jonathan Turley
J.B. and Maurice Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law; Director of the Environmental Law Advocacy Center; Executive Director, Project for Older Prisoners

Email: [email protected]
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Mailing address

[StClone]

75. Katyal is no Slough

Love The Turley but the other great DC school offers another Law Professor that we need Neal Katyal. He is a quote from Crooks and Liars:

On Friday’s Countdown, Keith Olbermann spoke with Georgetown Law professor, Neal Katyal, who successfully argued the Hamdan case before the Supreme Court about the CIA obstructing justice by destroying interrogation video tapes depicting torture. Keith brings up what are basically multiple levels of crimes at play here.



http://www.law.georgetown.edu/news/releases/may.5.2005.html

[postulater]

88. Agreed

Many times I watch Keith just to see if Turley is on.

[grasswire]

95. you forgot John Dean

I believe John Dean is Keith's most distinguished and influential guest.

[NightWatcher]

5. Time to start all over again. Re-elect no one in 2008

[TahitiNut]

38. I think 23 or 24 in the House deserve re-election and one in the Senate.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich
Rep Baldwin, Tammy - 8/1/2007
Rep Brady, Robert A. - 7/24/2007
Rep Clarke, Yvette D. - 6/6/2007
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy - 5/1/2007
Rep Cohen, Steve - 8/4/2007
Rep Davis, Danny K. - 11/5/2007
Rep Ellison, Keith - 6/28/2007
Rep Farr, Sam - 7/12/2007
Rep Filner, Bob - 7/12/2007
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. - 12/5/2007
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila - 8/4/2007
Rep Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. - 6/28/2007
Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. - 9/7/2007
Rep Lee, Barbara - 6/7/2007
Rep McDermott, Jim - 7/10/2007
Rep Moran, James P. - 7/10/2007
Rep Payne, Donald M. - 8/1/2007
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. - 5/1/2007
Rep Towns, Edolphus - 9/27/2007
Rep Waters, Maxine - 6/12/2007
Rep Watson, Diane E. - 10/16/2007
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. - 6/7/2007
Rep Wynn, Albert Russell - 5/10/2007

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hr110-333

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. Nice list. Which one in the senate?

Alas, my "liberal" rep has decided the surge is working and we just need more time to ensure "stability".

He has been informed that the way he votes decides the way I vote.

[TahitiNut]

59. Russ Feingold, I'd say.

:shrug:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

61. I didn't know he was up this time. I agree.

[Jackpine Radical]

106. Feingold isn't up this time. He was last re-elected in 2004.

He's good til 2010.

[Swamp Rat]

126. Thank goodness.

He's one of our best.

[Gregory Purcell]

72. And Richard Durbin

Sen. Durbin became a hot media topic on June 14, 2005<7>, when on the U.S. Senate floor he compared interrogation techniques used at Camp X-Ray, Guantanamo Bay, as reported by the FBI, with those utilized by such regimes as Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and the Khmer Rouge:

When you read some of the graphic descriptions of what has occurred here — I almost hesitate to put them in the record, and yet they have to be added to this debate. Let me read to you what one FBI agent saw. And I quote from his report:

On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18–24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold....On another occasion, the had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."

[L. Coyote]

100. Who is following Sen. Levin's oversight hearings on torture and prisoner treatment, Gitmo, etc.?

The Dems have been going after this, publically and in classified settings. Why do you suppose all this is coming out? Because people are working on it, of course, Dems in Congress and attorneys working on cases and defending human rights.

This is anything but information the Rs want out. They are the ones facing the indictments and impeachment.

[fascisthunter]

54. Kicking This Post

for others to gander at a very fine list.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

68. Yay!

Keith Ellison is my Congressman. :-)

[AuntPatsy]

7. I think that is a huge problem, many were sucked in without realizing until

too late they too found themselves being complicit in a crime not of their making, fear is more than likely keeping many from speaking out and demanding accountability, we have all fallen into the trap whether we realize it or not by now pointing fingers at the decoy while the real criminal once again gets away scott free...

[debbierlus]

13. No. They are ALL culpable

Don't give me that B.S. is that they didn't know. They were authorizing TORTURE....let's say it again...TORTURE....and, the dems stayed SILENT.

This does NOT mean that the Bush administration is not a complete criminal administration, they need to be impeached, they need to be tried for war crimes. Two things can be true at once....The Bush administration needs to be held accountable for creating & implementing torture, & the dems that KNEW also need to be held responsible.

Oh, & to the person above who told me to stop it....NO, I WILL NOT. YOU stop it. Hold your representatives accountable.

[BridgeTheGap]

74. Are you including those elected in 2006?

How could they have known?

[Jane Austin]

11. Is there some reason

We're buying the Washington Post's version of this hook, line and sinker?

If I ever heard of a way to get the focus off what the White House did than this, I can't remember it.

[spanone]

14. wish the dems would hold a press conference and clear this up, if they can.

bu$h* owns the media and they are way ahead on this

[debbierlus]

17. I am not going by the Washington Post, I am listening to Randi Rhodes

Turn it on.

[Jane Austin]

43. Sorry, I'm working.

But is Randi buying what the WaPo says?

[KittyWampus]

57. And Randi Rhodes is gullible as so many DU'ers are. Pathetic. DU can be a disgrace

[L. Coyote]

101. YUeah, where you can hear Randi repeat the WA POst lies and even expand on the lies with her ranting

Think for yourselves instead!

[Fleshdancer]

12. Time to clean House...and everywhere else.

I want every politician who knew about this OUT. I don't care who they are or what party they claim to belong to. Non-negotiable.

[jimshoes]

18. This is fascinating radio

I'm listening intently. Thanks Randi.

[Beelzebud]

19. The system is totally fucking broken.

I'm voting 3rd party every time I see it on a ballot.

We Democrats are good people. These fucking wolves we elect to represent us are not. I'm fucking sick of supporting a bunch of fucking enablers.

Pelosi should resign. Cindy Sheehan was right.

[ProSense]

21. Pelosi doesn't need to resign. Did Turley see the destroyed tapes?

Why is Turley just speaking up about this today?

This is beyond ridiculous! The WaPo article is speculation at best, and suddenly people are making all types of bogus claims about knowing all the details.

[spanone]

25. actually turley gave a good analysis of the situation

he talked about how the republicans (cheney/bu$h*) included the democrats in the 2002 discussions about possible future techniques and in doing so made them complicit in the torture they were surely using. so now the democrats can't truly investigate without implicating themselves
in the torture scenario. a form of blackmail. he was speaking as an observer.

this is what i got out of it anyway.

[ProSense]

31. That doesn't make any sense!

Harmon protested and Pelosi concurred. It's aslo assuming the entire party is covering for Pelosi, since she is only one of two Democrats who were briefed. How did we get from Pelosi to indicting every Democrat?

It's far-fetched and ridiculous!

[rhett o rick]

66. Right, everyone go back to sleep, everything is just fine. nm

[debbierlus]

37. Good summary.

[spanone]

55. thanks & kick

[Whisp]

52. the 2002 discussions...

this was before the Iraq occupation and abu graib. Was Gitmo up and running then-is that what they were talking about? or was this all a preplan and smooth roadway set well ahead of the crimes to ensure their 'safety net' of silence from the opposition?

I am not critisizing the criticisms towards Pelosi and the other complicits - that has been apparent to me for quite some time now - I'm just trying to piece this together in some way to make sense to me as I have not heard the Randi interview. I hope to see a transcript of her show up soon.

[L. Coyote]

102. A timeline is instructive, so here's a detailed one.

A timeline is instructive, so here's a detailed one. http://www.slate.com/id/2179607/sidebar/2179658 /

FROM: Ifs and Buts = If the CIA hadn't destroyed those tapes, what would be different?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2444290

In the uproar over the destruction by the CIA of taped interrogations of suspected al-Qaida operatives in the aftermath of Sept. 11, we are discovering creative new ways to speculate about past events. The pastime has begun with what should have been done differently—finger-pointing at congressional Democrats who'd been briefed about the tapes and remained silent, or distress over the failure to inform superiors at the CIA or the Bush administration. But here's a different thought experiment: How would the national debate over torture have changed if we'd known about the CIA tapes all along? How would our big terror trials and Supreme Court cases have played out?

Yes, this is also a speculative enterprise, but it's critical to understanding the extent of the CIA's wrongdoing here. And we have a benchmark. When the photos from Abu Ghraib were leaked in 2004, a national uproar ensued. Video of hours of repetitive torture could have had a similarly significant impact—the truism about the power of images holds. If we are right about that—and we think we are—this evidence that has been destroyed would have fundamentally changed the legal and policy backdrop for the war on terror in ways we've only begun to figure out.

.....................By Emily Bazelon and Dahlia Lithwick - Dec. 10, 2007 - http://www.slate.com/id/2179607 /

[Mojorabbit]

30. Because any politician

who was accused of this falsely would be out there in front of the story?

[frylock]

90. maybe they're using the john kerry approach of ignoring it..

and hoping it will just go away. remember how well that worked out?

[L. Coyote]

104. SO, read what Pelosi and her staff have said. Instead of pretending they have said nothing.

[Mojorabbit]

115. I have

and it is not good enough. I want details. Did she send a letter like Harmon did? What did she do? I don't know what your personal investment re this is as I have seen you all over these threads but the fact is that Neither of us have enough information to make any kind of judgement at this time. I am waiting for more info.

[ray of light]

49. He also spoke that they should get Congressional Immunity so that they

can testify--along the lines of Oliver North.

[Javaman]

22. I hope you have on your flame suit.

be prepared.

I have been getting blasted all day long. I'm a little crisp, but still here.

[Beelzebud]

23. The truth isn't easy for some to hear.

Blind loyalty gave us the Bush Administration. It sickens me that many on the left are willing to give the Democrats a free pass when they are FUCKING UP.

[Javaman]

27. Don't even get me started. LOL

I'm taking a break by hiding in here for a while. :)

cheers!

[KittyWampus]

58. The Truth? As long as it involves trashing a Democrat and perversely enabling Bush?

This shit fits so many DU'ers little script so well.

Bush and Cheney thank you.

[frylock]

91. get a hold of yourself..

that's fucking bullshit and you know it. any LEGIT criticism of dem leadership is treated as a smear by you fan boys. honest to crap, this place is no different than FR somedays, what with the blind loyalty to these fuckups.

[Disturbed]

29. The Dems also knew that Busholini was violating the FISA Law.

What did they do about that?

[debbierlus]

35. We watched them give LEGAL APPROVAL for illegal spying in August

It is right in our face. It is all coming out. This so needs to happen.

I am not to fussed about people decrying my post (although most people aren't, if you read through). Nothing will change until the truth comes out - it is the only thing that can set us free.

[Javaman]

39. Oh I know...

I was just warning the OP because I got crispered today in something I posted earlier.

[debbierlus]

32. These are smart people. It is a difficult thing to accept

I would implore people to listen to Randi.

This is just the beginning.

[sinkingfeeling]

24. And your proof that Pelosi knew about the torture is what? The Washington Post story and

Randi discussing it on the radio?

[ElboRuum]

86. No one said you had to decide what the truth is right this minute.

A wise person would be inclined to sit back with some :popcorn: and wait to see where this goes before accepting or rejecting these assertions.

[L. Coyote]

105. If they needed proof, this discussion would be soooo moot, and totally mute!

[99th_Monkey]

113. This is silly.. Pelosi HERSELF issued a lame "explanation" (tacid admission)

that she was briefed on the torture, but kept silent until another Dem House member spoke up about it.

why are you arguing about whether this happened when Pelosi has admitted it did?

[L. Coyote]

28. BULLSHIT ALERT! This is a propaganda piece at best and LIES.

What a crock of lies. It does not merit comment beyond the fact that is is just a lot of poorly formulated opinion with no basis in fact.

[SeattleGirl]

34. And you know this HOW?

:shrug:

[L. Coyote]

77. Bush Junta Lied About War Crimes to The World, the Courts, ALL Except Pelosi - That's LOL Moranic

Randi is often full of it. She is a free-wheeling talk show host, and she goes off reality road all the time.
That is fine on a talk show, especially given the juxtaposition of Rush Limbaugh in that media.
It is important to keep that in perspective, especially when the wrath is misdirected and simply without factual basis.

IN REPLY: What remains to be determined is what did the Bush junta actually inform Congress.

Check this thread, FROM: Bush Junta Lied About War Crimes to The World, the Courts, ALL Except Pelosi - That's LOL Moranic
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2444290

I think I found THE way of summing up the torture revelations.

It really is this simple. Bush has been lying, lying, and lying some more. He lied to the American People, to the World, denying the USA tortures and his war crimes.
The Junta has been busy lying too, to the courts about torture and about the evidence of the war crime, about the existence of video tapes of waterboarding.

What are the legal consequences of the perjury to the courts and the obstruction of justice. These revelations may overturn the cases against Zacarias Moussaui and Jose Padilla, not a small consequence, and the repercussions just spread from there to all cases where interrogations occurred.

So, Bush's lies were covering up perjury and obstruction of justice, and evidence of torture and war crimes. What else? The evidence was also sought by the 9/11 Commission. No doubt there is more to come still. Major players like Harriet Meirs were involved.

That is a brief summary of the import of what this newest scandal entails. Very serious and numerous crimes leading right to the President of the United States, and very impeachable crimes at that.

NOW, who would like to claim that, with all this lying going on, someone was running over to Capital Hill to fully inform Dem leaders about all this impeachable criminality? Come on, step right up and claim this moranic distinct. Own this idea! Anyone? Oh, come on. WA Post? Anyone at all?

I just transcends all reason to think that the Bush Junta, like faithful Catholics, were confessing their crimes against humanity to Dem leaders, admitting their perjury, obstruction of justice, war crimes, admitting all the lying, admitting impeachable offenses to Pelosi, Harman, Rockefeller.

Anyone falling for this scenario truly, truly deserves the distinction of being called a moran. :rofl:

[specimenfred1984]

79. Well said

It's amazing how people fall for propaganda, we truly are a nation of suckers.

[SeattleGirl]

84. Please note:

I am neither a moran or a sucker.

I was asking an honest question. When someone "drives by" and calls bullshit with no explanation as to why that is so, it irks me. However, the person whom I asked for an explanation came back to do just that, which I appreciate.

Please don't just assume that people are idiots because they ask for information to back a statement up. Frankly, I think there's something wrong with NOT asking for further information.

:)

[madrchsod]

41. we figured that out friday night...

this to shall pass...

[Beelzebud]

33. By the way, thanks for the heads up. I don't normally listen to Randi, but this show is great today

[debbierlus]

36. It really lays it out. Great, great stuff.

This is fantastic stuff.

[madrchsod]

40. do we know for a fact that pelosi did what she was accused of?

do we have a name behind the accusation? if so who is it? from the moment this was released all parties should say nothing until this is investigated by a special prosecutor or under oath in front of a house committee. let the chips fall where they may but before condemning we must wait for the facts to know the truth.


there is a federal court that was lied to and that there is where the real case is.

[ray of light]

50. Personally, I think he layed out the lines on IMPEACHMENT and the fact

that 6 actionable crimes were committed by the CIA and whoever ordered the destruction of the tapes.

[Wizard777]

51. I think this all the more reason to apoint a special prosecutor to investigate.

A Congressional investigation will just cover her butt and Bush's in the process.

[L. Coyote]

107. Those briefed are witnesses in an investigation, constrained to not speak or

they will jeopardize the very thing they are investigating. This info is surfacing because the Dems ARE doing their jobs!! And evidence is being destroyed, 10 million e-mails and all, because the Dems ARE doing their jobs. Notice who reacts how to this set of circumstances, and you know who is who where on the political spectrum!

[Kurovski]

53. K&R. (nt)

[Prefer]

60. Randi has been wrong before.

I am not excusing Pelosi, but I think there is a bit of a rush to judgment here. Perhaps a little early for Randi to be scalping Pelosi.

[toadzilla]

62. holy crap.

im re-subscribing to Randi.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

64. K&R n/t

[ProSense]

65. Here is Turley on Keith Olbermann

Countdown: Tortured Justice

Note where he says, "The fact that Democrats may have known about this since 2002 is a shocking revelation."


May, not definitely, but may, and definitely based on WaPo.

[magellan]

67. Question for ya

Pelosi's statement said that several months after her briefing in 2002, Harman received a more in-depth briefing on the interrogation techniques that had then been deployed, and wrote a classified letter to the CIA to "protest the use of such techniques". (Harman says that also included in that letter was a warning to the CIA not to destroy any tapes without first informing Congress.) Pelosi, in her statement, said she had concurred with this protest.

What else besides their definite knowledge of illegal "enhanced interrogation" techniques could have provoked such a specific response from them?

[L. Coyote]

108. Correction: They were informed by the Bush Junta that the "techniques" were "legal"

You infer otherwise by saying "illegal." No doubt they were using "illegal" techniques, we know in retrospect, but that is not how they were portrayed. Harmon objected to enhanced techniques that had been ruled legal. Ever since, the Dems have tried to get those rulings. Harmon tried to get the rulings and that was DAY ONE. Bush has refused to give up the rulings. They won't even let us see Harmon's letter because of that fact!!

That is how all this started, for Christ's sake! !@!***$#@# !! because the Dems objected to "enhanced interrogation" ruled legal.

If ever human has their own private reality, of what use are facts or history?

[magellan]

118. Actually, so far it's unclear who objected besides Harman

Pelosi's concurrence with that objection is not an objection she made of her own. She hasn't said what she did, if anything, to object at the time, and neither have the others.

One of several things I'm interested to know is why they stayed silent about what they knew until now. And before you helpfully remind me of secrecy rules, read this:

Senators and Representatives Could Have Spoken Out On Waterboarding: the Constitution Protects Their Right to Speak Out Without Fear of Legal Consequences

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).

Article I, section 6 of the Constitution reads as follows,

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

(emphasis added)

The Speech and Debate clause has been interpreted to extend beyond floor speeches, e.g. to committee statements, but it unquestionably applies to floor statements. Thus, it would have been possible for Rep. Harman, or Senator Rockefeller, or the others allegedly briefed to go to the floor, either during the times when members may speak on topics of their choice, or under one of the extraordinary mechanism for privileged statements, and denounce the Bush administration’s determinate to torture helpless captives in secret offshore detention facilities.

I’m not saying this would be easy or politically painless. The political risks are obvious – and recall the Congress was being briefed not all that long after 9/11. But even without the national security angle or the political frenzy angle, there were also counterveilling issues of fundamental personal ethics As Rep. Harman noted,

“When you serve on intelligence committee you sign a second oath — one of secrecy,” she said. “I was briefed, but the information was closely held to just the Gang of Four. I was not free to disclose anything.”

Serious people take oaths like this seriously and are right to do so; but before they took that second oath, they took a first one upon taking office in which they promised to “preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States.” To the extent that the second oath allows the executive to muzzle members of Congress, it is unconstitutional under any theory, including not only the Speech and Debate clause, but also the Incompatibility Clause (which forbids members of congress from serving in the executive branch; a converse conclusion is that this clause forbids the executive branch from turning members of Congress into subordinates).

more...

[KoKo]

71. Thanks for link...n/t

[Sancho]

69. Randi for President!

:dem:

[shireen]

70. heard that yesterday too, and it was shocking

whatever the Dems did, they need to COME CLEAN!
Tell us the truth and have the courage to face the consequences.

[L. Coyote]

109. I know you killed someone. Better come clean, and tell us the truth.

How does it feel to be so falsely accused?

[McCamy Taylor]

73. Those who paint torture as a BIPARTISAN issue are doing the RNC's work for 2008

even if they are KO's pal Jonathan Turley. Some Dems were told about it in the days after 9/11. Cheney dreamed it up and probably gets wet dreams thinking about it. Big difference, which the GOP does not want America--or the Democrats--to appreciate, because they are trying to encourage voter apathy among Democrats and Independents so that they will stay home next fall.

Divide and Conquer is the GOP's favorite political strategy. They All Do It is their second favorite political strategy. "Pelosi Knew" represents both.

Do not fall for corporate media propaganda.

[ElboRuum]

78. Well, that's a breath of foul air...

You're right. Now it does make sense. For the life of me, I couldn't figure out why so many key Dems were brushing the whole impeachment issue away. Even if unsuccessful, an impeachment proceeding would have established quite a bit of cachet for Dems amongst most voters who expected a change in direction. That they wouldn't take this opportunity had always been a bit of a puzzlement.

[L. Coyote]

80. Imagine the Dem and Pelosi bashing when impeachment begins. The groundwork is what you see now.

The real edifice will be immense by comparison to the current smear effort.

Anyone who does not see that the current smear is a counter-impeachment move needs to have lunch with a guy named Karl. :rofl:

[ElboRuum]

82. My Lunch With Karl...

Yeah, um... ha ha ha... uh heh... yeah. That's a good one there. :eyes: Anyway... moving on...

But the theory does fit the facts. Saw your little post up a bit. Call me a moran if you must. I've been called worse.

Impeachment will not happen, regardless of this story. Anyone that still believes it will is drinking something... OH YEAAAH!
Pelosi and the other key Dems are either playing losing politics or they've not been up front about their reasons as to why impeachment is off the table. Maybe it isn't CYA, but there's something we're not being told, and I have suspected this for some time.

Note: I sincerely hope to be wrong in this prediction of no impeachment, but there isn't even serious talk about it anymore. The Dems wanted this to blow over, at least within the halls of Congress if not with the electorate at large. I'd like to know why.

[Mythsaje]

83. What really pisses me off

is that you think this is funny.

Even if you're right, it's hardly funny. And if you're wrong...

[ElboRuum]

85. And if he/she is wrong...

...gasp... why I guess that would mean that we're even bigger suckers than if we believe this alleged propaganda... we were sold a bill of goods in this last election which were never intended to be delivered, even in the smallest amount.

And honestly? I hope he/she is right, I hope I am a gullible tool, because if he/she is wrong, we're circling the drain here.

[L. Coyote]

110. I do not think this is funny. It is funny is how people react to it without critical reasoning, or

at least it is easier to deal with the lack of critical reasoning by interjecting humor in criticism, easier for those being criticized.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[grasswire]

116. this post is really offensive

You have a beef? Fine. How about stating it in language not derogatory to women?

[BrklynLiberal]

87. How disgustingly brilliant of BushCo to set itup so that the Dem leadership will be co-conspirators!

I don't know whether to puke, laugh or cry....or all three.

[grasswire]

92. Salute President Rice, then

If Cheney, Bush and Pelosi resign, Condi is president.

[L. Coyote]

111. The new Speaker of the House becomes President if Pelosi says NO to the job.

If Pelosi doesn't want to be President, she can step aside and allow a new Speaker to be chosen.

[Sam Ervin jret]

98. And I bet the Businesses want Immunity because they used the info. and the tracing device for their

advertising advantage too
.
Think about it.
If you were AT&T HOW COULD YOU be TALKED into a federal crime like this FISA FIASCO.
They knew they could get not only all the data mining info but the program that makes connections between people and, in the case of advertisers, their "needs."

Maybe the next ball that drops is that the communication companies were not just passive pansies being taken advantage of by the Government overreaching, but willing partners in crime. "Bribed" to do what they knew would get them access to a gold mine of information.

I have no proof of this, of course, but it make a lot of sense. It speaks volumes as to why it took one guy with a soul to break this whole thing open as opposed to the companies fighting this intrusion into their customers privacy (which they have promised to guard) in the courts.

FISA, TORTURE, it's just business people - no big deal

[CGrantt57]

99. You people are really gullible, you know that?

Amidst all the real story of the destroyed CIA torture tapes, said tapes that were ordered destroyed by the White House, which means they abetted a cover-up and probably a felony, you parrot this outrageous bullshit by the right-wing distraction machine.

Pelosi was not briefed about "waterboarding."

Pelosi was briefed about several possible methods of interrogation that the CIA was considering implementing.

It wasn't like: "Hey, Nancy, we're gonna fucking torture people. You down with that?"

"Oh, sure. Whatever you guys want. Thanks for telling me."

It was more like: "The CIA and its various entities are considering several methods of extracting information from suspected terrorists. Said methods may include, but may not be limited to..."

If you don't see the difference you're as fucking stupid as the right wing hopes you are.

Regards,

[L. Coyote]

112. Thanks for the breath of fresh air. However, around here that's 20% combustible oxygen, so duck!

[grasswire]

114. wild-eyed cudgel bearers

Who knew there are as many on the left as there are on the right?

[ElboRuum]

117. Men of straw are easily set aflame.

Well, if you are all such remarkable thinkers, you still seem a little flummoxed by the one question that is the diarrheal elephant in the room. Why is impeachment off the table? Please, enlighten all of us poor gullible souls aching to bash Ms. Pelosi et al for no fucking better reason than the fact that, with their newfound authority, they've done precisely dick to end the rubber stamping of this administration's overreach, pray tell what is the real furry little puppy reason for their reticence to do their Constitutional duty?

Wait, lemme guess. They're working up to it, getting their ducks in a row and whatnot. Well quackity, quack, quack, quack. Uh-huh. Sure. There are those still deluding themselves that impeachment will happen. Gullible. Meh.

[CGrantt57]

119. There's not enough time to impeach

There are a number of reasons not to impeach. The primary one has to do with time. Contrary to what most impeachment seekers feel, the process is often long and drawn out. This administration has an incredible gift for stonewalling, and obfuscation.

Plus, they command the right wing noise machine. The minute impeachment is mentioned officially by the dems, that machine goes into hyper-drive and the corporate media starts painting impeachment as a "getting even for Clinton's impeachment" sort of thing.

You can't fight the corporate media and the Screech Machine.

Ultimately, though, there is a little over 1 year left to this reign of terror. Now, we can either move forward with what plans we have to do the best we can, given the stalling tactics of the republicans, OR, we can grind the government to a halt and pursue impeachment.

I know impeachment would make you feel all warm and fuzzy, but, is it really the best thing for our country at this time?

You won't get rid of them. You don't have the votes.

Regards,

[maine_raptor]

121. Reading this post and your #99

Let me say:

WELCOME TO DU!

:toast:

I most sincerely agree with #99 as to how it went down, and am in full agreement on this one.

My opinion of this whole mess (tapes) is that we are witnessing a War between members of the Intelligence Community and the White House. All this stuff (the OP) is just distraction and disinformation designed to muddy the waters and hide the tracks of the real crooks in this administration.

[ElboRuum]

122. Warm and fuzzy?

If there isn't time now, there was then. Impeachment came off the table shortly after the last election.

Warm and fuzzy now consists of the reason why this was off the table and in such short step. The intent to pursue this President in any manner consistent with Constitutional mandate was never seriously considered.

Oh, please, yes. Let's get to the real important legislation right away: the resolution recognizing the importance of Christmas. And let's not forget a brand new bill which allows any computer or other device which has been used in an alleged copyright infringement to be confiscated and auctioned off even if the owner is found not guilty. Great looking out for the Bill of Rights there.

Yes, if this is what you insinuate is the progress which will be halted, I can see now why it's so decidedly important to just let it go. My bad.

For any interested parties uncertain of intent... :sarcasm:

[CGrantt57]

123. Instead of running down our leaders...

why don't you go see what the hold up is in the senate.

Go do your homework and find out why things have come to such an impasse.

Go find out about the rule of 60 that the republican minority imposed.

Go find out about the endless filibustering by the republican minority.

Instead of trashing our leaders who are doing the best they can with their razor-thin majority, why don't you get on board with those of us who know who the real villains are here.

Help us get out the message that the 2006-2007 republicans have been the most obstructionist bloc since congress began.

If we keep telling people the truth, maybe we can get that veto-proof 60.

Then, I'll be first in line to tell every republican senator to go fuck himself.

Starting with Lieberman.

Word, baby.

Regards,

[ElboRuum]

125. Trashing our leaders...

That's a funny way of saying "redress of grievances". But if you like it, go with it.

I know what the holdup is in the Senate. But those bills I mentioned passed with OVERWHELMING MAJORITY. The first is just plain stupid, and the second is practically unconstitutional (as if that means much anymore). Pelosi's been playing patty-cake since DAY ONE and the rest have been lining up right behind her to do the same. Is this appeasement? Is this what we elected all of these Dems for? To appease? Or to obstruct?

They say that if you can't play good offense, play good defense. I don't care about a razor-thin majority or a minority. Being a leader is about occasionally saying the politically dangerous thing because it needs saying. It's about doing the politically dangerous thing because it needs doing. It's about connecting with your followers through word and deed, not protecting your presumed fiat to hold that position of leadership. A leader who does not lead is not a leader. Pelosi has not led.

Even if we keep telling people the truth, the leadership (or what is passing for it right now) is alienating the base and frustrating the moderates. With Congressional approval ratings hovering around the boundary of the lower two quintiles, that veto-proof 60 is never going to happen because Pelosi and the rest of the Dem "leaders" are doing nothing... I'll repeat that... NOTHING... to address the issues which brought them that razor-thin majority, and that needs to be corrected before the next election.

[aggiesal]

103. So how much does Sen. Reid know? ...

No wonder Kucinich's Impeach Cheney resolution is clogged up in committee.

[deacon]

120. And Shumer and DiFi helped an AG in that doesn't consider water boarding torture. n/t

[lovuian]

124. Congress is sooo screwed and Yes thats why Pelosi

is scrambling