Democrats Knew About Torture

[parkerll]

Jonathan Turley, consitutional scholar, has this on his blog:

In what may be as disturbing for some voters, Hayden pointedly implicated Democrats in the controversy, stating that the CIA told oversight committees of its intention to destroy the evidence. Two Democrats have now admitted that they knew of the plan: Sen. Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.) and Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.). They insist that they did not know whether the plan was carried out — but they did nothing to stop it.

Moreover, it now appears that Democrats and Republicans knew of the use of torture for years. According to The Washington Post, various leaders were briefed on the use of waterboarding in 2002, including now-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

Recently, the White House admitted that former White House counsel Harriet Miers was also informed of the plan to destroy the tapes. The White House insists (as do the Democratic Members) that she strongly encouraged the CIA not to carry out the plan. Once again, this is obviously insufficient. Miers was counsel to the president who could have ordered the preservation of the tapes. She was aware of a plan that was presumptively unlawful and did nothing apparently but object.
--------------------
Listening to him on the Randi Rhodes show on 12/10/07 convinced me that the Democrats and Republicans are the same thing. You are fooling yourself if you think otherwise. Listen to his interview with Rhodes.

[bryant69]

1. Maybe you are particularly gullible.

If so, would you like to buy a bridge that recently came into my possession?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[parkerll]

4. Listen to Turley

I trust the word of a Washington Law School professor over yours.

[L. Coyote]

2. DUPE thread, ANDI call BULLSHIT again.

The other thread is http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2444927&mesg_id=2444927

-------------
What remains to be determined is what did the Bush junta actually inform Congress.

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:

[magellan]

5. And I call BULLSHIT on your bullshit again

Ignore me all you like. Legitimate concerns are raised and you answer with "bullshit" and parsing. You're in denial.

Parse the meaning of the classified letter Harman sent to the CIA in 2003, in response to an in-depth briefing she had received on the interrogation techniques being employed by them, to "protest the use of such techniques". Parse the meaning of Pelosi saying she had concurred with that letter of protest.

All of that information comes from Pelosi's press release yesterday. There is nothing "iffy" about it. A classified letter of protest and Pelosi's admitted concurrence with that protest aren't things they'd do if they believed what was being done was unquestionably legal.

[zbdent]

7. So, if you are told of something, but also told that you would be thrown into

jail and the key thrown away if you happened to mention anything about it ... at best ...

Does the word "classified" mean anything to you? Seems to mean a lot to Repukes ... everything that even makes Bush smell less than like a rose is under "executive privilege", or is marked "classified" for "national security reasons" (which is also why Cheney won't ever release all the names of the oil companies with whom he met in Feb 2001 that he defied a court order to reveal) ...

[magellan]

8. Strict rules of secrecy can always be worked around

During Iran-Contra the words "banana" and "orange" were used in secret discussions instead of "Israel" and "US". And during Ford's term, he told economist Herb Stein not to use the word "recession." Stein used the word "banana" instead. "When I say banana, think 'recession'. I think we must be wary of the risks of a banana."

Would YOU choose to keep a crime a secret over informing others of it somehow?

[zbdent]

14. Gee, when the person telling me that all the people that I know and love

can be negated in a second (remember, poppy Bush ran the CIA), I tend to get a bit nervous ...

[magellan]

15. Then I would suggest you have no business in gov't

Honestly. If threats are being made that are keeping you from doing the right thing, get out. You're no use to the country compromised like that.

[zbdent]

16. ran across an old post of mine ... a repuke pundit was saying that,

if the generals chose not to give an honest answer to Bush, then they were cowards (no media firestorm there). This was in response to Murtha saying something that the RW pundit decided was "essentially calling generals cowards" ...

I guess that these generals were of no use to their country either ...

[magellan]

19. Not after they abdicated their duty, no.

When they decided to tell Bush** what he wanted to hear rather than the truth, they condemned the men and women under their command to suffer the consequences of their lie. I was in the military. It doesn't run well when the people who are being asked to put their necks on the line for this country know their superiors have hung them out to dry.

[mike_c]

3. of course they knew-- dems in congress have been complicit in war crimes...

...and domestic abuses every step of the way. Dems have enabled the neocon agenda at every opportunity. The party cheerleaders refuse to face it, but the democratic party is fully complicit in the neocon agenda.

[parkerll]

6. Yep

That's pretty much what Turley says.

[Occam Bandage]

9. Republicans bait the hook, and you take the bait.

[CatWoman]

10. and if I see this subject posted again

I very well may shoot myself...........

[The Magistrate]

11. Many Feel Your Pain, Ma'am

It does strike me as a tempest in a teapot.

First, it is hard to imagine anyone unaware that torture was being employed from the earliest days of the Afghan invasion at least. The thing was in the air, and news reports, particularly those related to the unfortunate young Mr. Lihnd, clearly described torturous treatment of prisoners in interrogation. the fact is that this was not only widely known, but widely popular, as it suited the rage animating the people to a tee.

Second, the idea that anything could have been done about these actions by the minority Democrats in Congress during the period '02 to early '07 is laughable. Protests 'through channels', that were ignored, and could only be expected to be ignored, were about the limit that could be done. Eve today, so long as Justice is in the hands of the present administration, no law in existence against torture will be enforced, and no law that might be passed, even were the miracle of a veto over-ride managed, would be heeded.

The pattern of blaming Democrats for what the Republican administration does is an old one, and is trotted out for just about anything, which suggests it is more of a predisposition for some than a real response to something particular. Where it is encountered, there are generally two items present: a disposition towards third party splinterism, and a rejection of a majority of Democratic Party voters as not being 'real Democrats'.

[CatWoman]

12. well said, sir. extremely well said.

Second, the idea that anything could have been done about these actions by the minority Democrats in Congress during the period '02 to early '07 is laughable.

:thumbsup:

[magellan]

24. Speech or Debate Clause

Article 1, Section 6

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.

emphasis added

[L. Coyote]

13. And, I must add, where is the mention of Sen. Levin's oversight investigations?

The Dems have been going after this one, as part of their oversight responsibility since entering the majority. How convenient that this fact has been completely ignored in the M$M reports on this issue.

[blondeatlast]

21. They are holding hearings right now, aren't they? nt

[blondeatlast]

20. I'd recommend that if I could. It's obvious that the WH is lying through its

teeth when they trot out the "balme Democrats" thing is used.

What's sad is how easily many fall for it. Not that there isn't blame for this side, but in this case it's BS.

[maddezmom]

17. you might want to read this

Hayden: "We Could Have Done an Awful Lot Better"
By Paul Kiel - December 12, 2007, 2:12PM
What a difference a scandal makes. Coming out of his briefing to the House intelligence committee today, CIA Director Michael Hayden was penitent: "particularly at the time of the destruction we could have done an awful lot better at keeping the committee alerted and informed."

It's a markedly different tone from the one he took last week. Then, he released a statement about the tapes' destruction and claimed that the intelligence committees had received ample notification of the intention to destroy the tapes and then their actual destruction. Both committees said that wasn't true. Now he apparently agrees.

Today was the second of Hayden's initial briefings on the scandal. Yesterday's was to the Senate intelligence committee, where he said that even though he's in charge at the CIA, he's not really the guy to be talking to: "Other people in the agency know about this far better than I." Hayden says he learned of the tapes' destruction as far back as last year, when he was the principal deputy director of national intelligence and before he took over at the CIA in May of 2006.

more:http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004889.php

[Perry Logan]

18. Propaganda 101: Divide and weaken the opposition. Make them doubt their leaders.

[Generator]

22. Opposition?

I wish. More like pretending to be the oppostion to get elected, then playing co-conspirator the rest of the time. Or maybe they are being "blackmailed" or maybe they are just worthless weasels. Must be one or the other.

[spanone]

23. i don't care if presbyterians knew, whoever knew should pay the price