I don’t think it is any giant secret that the Democrats were complicit in the torture of detainees, but it is nice to have some names and dates (I’m assuming you all are not named Rosen, and as such, understand the value of facts mixed in with your assertions):
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.
According to the Note, Rockefeller and Harman as well as a couple Republicans were also named. So now you know for sure why many Democrats are also unwilling to investigate the torture of the past few years, as their fingerprints are all over it.
Just disgraceful. I guess it is the Washington way- you can get away with anything so long as you have enough conspirators.
*** Update ***
Via the comments, Scott Horton and Marcy Wheeler are both skeptical about the reporting from the Note.
Much more debunking here.
Redhand
It’s disgraceful to be sure, but pales in significance to the far greater evil of the Bush Administration developing the torture policy to begin with.
Ugh
Note that whether she was specifically told about waterboarding is unclear.
Also note that if Dems are complicit, all the whinging about “criminalization of policy differences” and “witch-hunts” goes out the windows.
Jon
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/the-key-waterboarding-question/
Well..maybe not.
Dennis-SGMM
Is there anyone here who didn’t think that some Democrats knew about the torture? To have known about it and said nothing is bad enough, to feign disinterest because we should “look forward, not backward” is even worse.
The mantra of the Watergate days is just as applicable to these Democrats: “What did they know and when did they know it?” More so for Democrats because I expect better of them. A cover up is a cover up and it stinks all the way up to heaven.
The Grand Panjandrum
Go read Emptywheel and Greg Sargent before you harsh on them too much. But yes we need a public airing of this dirty laundry to find out who knew what and when they knew it.
You do get an Aw Shit for relying on ABC for anything though. C’mon Cole! But I will reiterate that we need a public airing of all the dirty laundry of the previous administration AND what the Congress knew abou these crimes.
Elvis Elvisberg
We need investigations, and this is why we’re not getting them.
If these Democratic legislators broke laws, they should go to jail.
That said, I don’t see how they did; telling people that you’re breaking the law– even if those people are in Congress!– doesn’t necessarily give you a legal obligation to report it, much less immunize your wrongdoing.
At the very least, we have profiles in cowardice from the Congressional Dems here (shock!). But the people who decided to torture, and told some Congressmen about torture, and implemented a policy of torture, remain the ones most deserving of lifetime sentences. Investigate them all, prosecute them all.
neil
Oh, the CIA says so. There’s a neutral, unimpeachable source for you.
Dennis-SGMM
@Redhand:
Sorry, Redhand, I will not let Democrats off the hook because whatever it is they’re doing wrong isn’t as bad as what Bushco did. If “not as bad as Bush” excuses rotten behavior then we’re not only fucked, we’ve diminished the difference between ourselves and the Republicans.
Agi
But no, the two parties are like totally different, man.
Ted the Slacker
Yeah, careful, both Scott Horton and Marcy Wheeler are both saying the Note is probably full of crap.
rob!
If some Dems knew, prosecute them too. Easy.
wasabi gasp
That’s gonna leave a mark.
Michael Scott
Yeah, these CYA memos from Goss’s CIA don’t prove shit to me, John, about the Dems’ alleged complicity. But their hysterical fingerpointing at Democrats to blackmail them into not investigating further has certainly worked — so far.
Ted the Slacker
Yeah, careful, both Scott Horton and Marcy Wheeler are saying the Note is probably full of crap.
The Grand Panjandrum
Not to put to fine a point on it but ABC is where that sneaky back door nut sucker Jake Tapper works!
(I couldn’t resist. I’ve been waiting since yesterday to employ that lovely “nugget”, as it were.)
bhagamu
Hold on a sec, mcjoan sez on the GOS that that might not be true.
demimondian
@Dennis-SGMM: I like Josh Marshall’s take on this.
Kirk Spencer
1) I note that this report is a compilation of memorandums for record and “best recollections of personnel involved at the time.”
2) I note that at least one error of fact has been found in the document by Marcy Wheeler’s group. Goss was DCI at the time of the March 8 2005 briefing and so could not have been one of the HPSCI congresscritters briefed. Her group has also found several conflicts with published statements from Pelosi, Gross, and even other CIA official releases.
For the above reasons, I’m holding off on which Dems I criticize and for what.
I want an investigation. I want to know who knew what when and what they did about it. I’m aware some answers will remain classified for good reasons (and some for poor) and that some will remain unanswered. I still want an honest effort investigation by a dedicated professional, and let the chips fall where they may.
Xenos
Aside from the issue of Pelosi claiming not to have been briefed when she was, indeed, briefed (might as well let her respond before condemning her on that issue), what of it? These centrist Democrats got a briefing about torture. Aside from writing a letter objecting to the torture to W. and then filing in their CYA file, what should they have done?
Do you doubt that the Bush Administration would have gone after them on criminal charges if they publicized the practices and the techniques of the CIA interrogators? Do you doubt that every political, legal, and physical intimidation would not be pursued against them?
Remember, the Pelosi briefing was just one year after the Anthrax attacks, which constituted an attempted coup d’etat on the Democratic leadership of the Senate. Oh, yeah, the Anthrax attacks that were so ardently and successfully investigated for these last few years.
I don’t mean to excuse Pelosi. She should have come out against the torture a long time ago. But it is a severely false equivalence to compare Pelosi to Bush. And it is plainly wrong to use these briefings as the Bush Administration meant them – a way of relieving the Republican Administration from responsibility for war crimes.
edit- wow- I am writing slowly if 19 people got in before me. People are ready and loaded for bear on this.
demimondian
Shorter @Redhand: “Clinton did it first!”
Comrade Darkness
These briefings were confidential at a national security level. Any thing the dems could have done would have been in the spirit of unrest and upheaval given the law and traditions they’d have had to break. Cajones were not handed out to the dems in the right size range for that. The blackmailers won. They were smart enough to start when all the heat would have been on the dems. Not that that’s any kind of excuse for not doing the right thing. Just an explanation.
El Tiburon
Cole, you may be falling for the banana in the tailpipe trick again.
And you’re putting your faith in The Note? Really?
Your propensity to fall for it once again may come back to haunt you.
You are quickly running out of “I can’t believe I fell for that again!”
The Other Steve
I think it’s more important to win the argument of why torture is wrong, then to go on a witchhunt.
I’m still apalled that something like 49% of Americans think torture may be ok.
neil
@demimondian: Me too.
Although I’d really like to know what would’ve ended up happening if they told Pelosi what they were doing and she decided to blow the whistle and publicly accuse the Bush admin. of torturing terrorists — in late 2002.
I think there’s a large chance that everything would’ve turned out worse. Would the Congress have explicitly authorized the torture techniques that Pelosi blew the whistle on? It’s likely. Would the Democrats have blamed their 2002 midterm election loss on this naive pro-human-rights stand and joined in on publicly endorsing torture? Probably. Would Pelosi have been pilloried and maybe even prosecuted for leaking classified information from the war on terror? Yes.
It’s not a profile in courage, but politics isn’t a place where courage usually wins results.
Kirk Spencer
@rob!:
No, I think that’s a flawed jump. If some Dems knew, we need to know that. But “knowing” is not itself grounds for prosecution.
Did they authorize or abet torture?
Let’s take a specific example – Jay Rockefeller. He was briefed, and he wrote an MFR at the time objecting on legal and moral grounds. He said he objected at the meeting. We have statements from Republicans who attended the meetings that the briefings were informational, not decision making. In other words the attendees could not stop what they were being told. So, should Jay Rockefeller be prosecuted for “knowing”?
I want to know who authorized, ordered, and abetted torture. I want them hammered to the fullest extent of the law. I want those who knew but did nothing known – prosecution is not possible, but most will face elections or retention and promotion reviews in the future and I want this on the record. However, I don’t want a witch hunt. That’s the sort of thing that allows rebounding down the road. The guilty get the benefit of regrets over hounding the innocent.
Shawn in ShowMe
I think there’s a reason that the CIA won’t go all the way and say that Pelosi was briefed on waterboarding. Because she wasn’t. “Harsh” is just a more honest word for “enhanced”. As in the”enhanced interrogation techniques” which Pelosi has already admitted knowledge of.
These guys are masters of obfuscation, John. Don’t fall for it.
The Other Steve
BTW…
Exactly how does this contradict her statements?
Even the AP questions this argument, noting that while she may have been briefed, the CIA documents make no mention of whether they told her they had waterboarded a suspect. Whereas other briefings do make mention of waterboarding, but they were with Jane Harman not Pelosi. Jane Harman also wrote a letter back to the CIA voicing concern about these tactics.
I’m so sick of arguing the meaning of words. And it’s so amazing to me that this rule only applies to Democrats.
The Grand Panjandrum
@The Other Steve:
That is slightly lower than the number of people who don’t believe in evolution.
Raoul
Simple question: if she was informed, and who the hell knows whether that’s true- what was she supposed to have done with the information?
Comrade Darkness
What this whole thing reveals is a structural flaw in the way congress oversees the executive branch. The administration is required to brief this committee, but the committee is sworn to secrecy about the briefings. In the hands of a unitary executive, this is a formula for accomplishing nothing but making the most powerful members of the back bench into co-conspirators.
Redhand
It oughta be clear I’m not letting them “off the hook.” What is it about “disgraceful” that you don’t understand?
The institutional failure shouldn’t be overlooked, however: a lawless, secretive executive running roughshod over members of a cowed, compliant legislature where everyone is operating in an atmosphere of fear.
WTF is so controversial about saying that the executive branch, the one charged with “taking care that the laws are faithfully executed,” is the primary bad actor? We wouldn’t have this legal and moral disaster on our hands if they had done the right thing to begin with. I’d be taking the same position if it was a Democratic president who had done these things, while still condemning the other party’s legislators who remained silent.
Comrade E.B. Misfit
The day hasn’t come when I’ll believe that the CIA is being honest or impartial about this. Not without confirmation to beat the friggin’ band, I won’t.
Zifnab
@Ugh:
That hardly matters. If she thought they were using thumb screws and the rack instead of repeated drownings, she doesn’t come across as less culpable.
That said, it seems a bit silly to hold Pelosi’s feet to the fire over this in 2005, when she couldn’t even get Congressional pedophile Mark Foley in front of an ethics board. I mean, what did you want her to do, exactly? Ask Denny Hastart very, very nicely to hold a committee hearing that doesn’t get the lights shut off and the sound unplugged? Maybe, if she was really lucky, she could get a non-binding resolution on the floor of the House that declares America Doesn’t Torture.
She was wielding all the political clout of a doorstop. That the GOP continues to dump on Miss San Fransisco Values for this when – in the same breath – they alternately deny torture happened at all and claim Jack Bauer made them do it to save us our freedom… I mean, what do you want? The fact that Democrats are afraid of retribution for this is what’s absurd. Apologize, decry the practice, and reform it. No one is seriously going to hold the Dem Minority Leader legally culpable for failing to flail powerlessly against Mr Unitary Executive and the Unstoppable Fourthbranch.
sgwhiteinfla
Add Greg Sargent to those who are skeptical of how ABC news and others are framing this.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/cia-admits-that-info-about-torture-briefings-for-dems-may-not-be-accurate/
gwangung
Personally, appropriate punishment for the appropriate sin.
Folks who authorized and carried out torture really SHOULD get punished more severely than those who acquiesced (assuming that she was accurately informed).
Awesom0
If (and I stress “if”) Pelosi and any other Democrats signed off on this, then they are just as guilty as any of the Bushies, period.
If Pelosi did know and offered her support in any way, then the American public needs to see that she (and any other Democrat) permanently goes Galt. Our elected officials have a responsibility to call out illegal activities/war crimes. If they don’t because it’s politically inconvenient, then they are so lacking in moral conviction they should be kept as far away from power is possible.
Of course, I do not know if these allegations are, in fact, true, but if they are; then fuck Nancy Pelosi and any other Dem in on the con.
We hung Japanese who waterboarded people, the least we can fucking do is unelect the people who authorized it or stood idly by while it happened.
Dennis-SGMM
@Redhand:
I apologize. I’m one of those tinfoil-hatted people who believes that there’s little enough difference between the two parties and that anything that diminishes that difference is a Bad Thing.
wasabi gasp
Nothing is clear on the internets. Except that maybe julesadouche should be a word.
Zifnab
@Awesom0:
Oh bullshit. Bush and the GOP held all the cards. The Pelosi support was so nominal it was barely worth mentioning. This was CYA by the Bush legal team in case the whole thing went south (which it did) and they needed someone to hang the blame on. Had Pelosi objected, the Bush team would have just entered into another round of “Why do you hate America?” bashing against a party that had already been pretty much ground out under the opposition’s heel. And then they’d have gone ahead and done it all anyway after John Yoo wrote up a legal brief explaining why the President can take a congressperson out back and beat her with a rubber hose.
I’m more disgusted with Pelosi’s 2006 “Impeachment is off the table” remark than I am with this. At least in 2006 she had muscle.
Awesom0
@Zifnab
Sorry, but I have to strongly disagree with you here.
Oh bullshit. Bush and the GOP held all the cards. The Pelosi support was so nominal it was barely worth mentioning.
Again, if she lacked the moral courage to oppose WAR CRIMES, then she is so lacking in character, she does not deserve to hold elected office. Nominal support for war crimes is still support.
People who raise their voice only when it’s safe to do so are cowards. Period.
Shawn in ShowMe
It doesn’t. Explaining the CIA’s legal position with regard to “enhanced interrogation techniques” isn’t the same as “we waterboarded a guy 80 times last month”. Not even close.
Given how extensive the program was, it should be easy for the CIA to produce a memo with Pelosi’s name on it that mentions waterboarding. But they can’t. Compare that to Dick Cheney, who
lostdestroyed all the waterboarding documents he could find with his name on it.But somehow the MSM has determined that whatever Dick Cheney — the director of the torture program — knew, Nancy Pelosi also must have known. Because they were best buddies and everything. The doctrine of False Equivalence strikes again.
Since Harman continues to cover for the CIA, it looks like they picked the right Congresscritter to share secrets with.
flounder
Is there every a case where you should not be skeptical of the “reporting” that the Note supposedly does? According to the Note, McCain is going to win this election.
David Hunt
“Treason doth never prosper, for if it does none dare call it ‘treason.'”
Gus
@Redhand: That argument sounds a lot like “at least we didn’t behead people.” This is why an investigation is badly needed, but also, unfortunately, why there won’t be one.
Awesom0
Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither – Benjamin Franklin
Again, if this is true (and as many commentors have pointed out; the verdict is far from certain), then I say Pelosi and some Dems certainly sacrificed liberty for political security and deserve to be tossed out on their asses.
Sam Simple
My grandmother used to say that being good meant doing the right thing, even if no one was looking. Nancy Pelosi is not very good, is she?
sparky
i clicked ovah to redstate cuz i was curious how gleeful the commenters would be. what do i find but a story that Bush was forced to tell Pelosi. why? because the Ds were the equivalent of the Copperheads in the Civil War, that’s why!
i suppose i should be pleased to see that the writing of fictional history continues, but, alas, no. also, if they are really going to write make-believe, they should read some professionals, like Thurber.
and if not, maybe the Newty can get the GOP to switch to writing sci-fi instead of make-believe history. i mean we already know how the Obama dystopia is going to play out, right?
georgia pig
@Awesom0: Bullshit again, you’re assuming a whole host of facts not in evidence. Think about how this plays out. The CIA tells Pelosi that they might use some techniques – some of which are torture and some of which are not – if it is necessary. As Zifnab points out, this is pre-emptive ass-covering, just like the Bybee and Yoo memos. It makes it look in retrospect, to those who tend to gloss over facts, like Pelosi is an accomplice to torture. She isn’t, and it ain’t even close. Remember, this shit is classified and Pelosi is subject to criminal prosecution if she divulges it.
Napoleon
@Kirk Spencer:
What he said – he is absolutely correct.
John Cole
@El Tiburon: The banana gag never gets old in the movies, though!
Seriously, I understand the bind these guys might have been in, and I can understand how some in the CIA might be spinning this to get just the reaction I provided here. However, the info from the note came from Leon Panetta, and I simply think it is hard to believe that Pelosi and others, if they did not outright know, took a see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil approach.
sparky
@John Cole: maybe they were taking Peggy Noonan’s advice.
incidentally if it turns out that Noonan and Cheney have been running the country, i say RUN AWAY!
Awesom0
@georgia pig
Yes, I am assuming lots of things. I’ve said is much in my posts! My assertion is based on the assumption that she had full knowledge (or at least enough to know better). If she didn’t and this is, in fact, political ass covering, then I will back off.!
The “disclosing classified information” defense is fucking weak. It’s just like in the military, where insubordination is illegal, but not if it’s being done in defense of illegal acts. In fact, military personnel are required to disobey and report this shit. It’s the exact same fucking thing here.
Again, it is ENTIRELY possible this is just a bunch of political CYA, but I am not arguing the merit of these allegations. I am simply saying, hypothetically, that if they are true, then Pelosi is guilty as sin. Can we agree on that? I really don’t think you’re one of those rightwing douchebags who could rationalize away any sin just because their side was doing it.
Imagine being a defendant to an accessory to murder charge and offering up the following defense:
“Your Honor: Sure he told me he occasionally that he seriously might start murdering people. Sure, he told me exactly how he was going to do it and who he was going to do it to. Later, when I learned he was murdering people, I told no one. When investigators asked me about it, I stayed quiet, or flat out lied. I was worried that, if I told police, I might lose my job.”
If you were the judge, would you go easy on this guy?
I’m so passionate about this because I want this fucking country’s soul back!
Xenos
If anyone doubts that this is part of a campaign to discredit Pelosi and attribute to her responsibility for torture, check out the comments to the Washington Post article linked by JC.
It must be wingnut Christmas out there. The vitriol against Pelosi, who hardly criticized the administration in the first place, is amazing.
joeyess
Two things: Pelosi was briefed. Of that there is no doubt. As was Harman and Rockefeller. However they were prohibited by law not to disclose this information to anyone. Not even an aid.
Secondly, take into consideration the depth of insanity that this nation had sunk with the aid of Republican/MSM fear mongering at the time, and Pelosi, Harman and Rockefeller would have been crucified on television. And I don’t think it would be hyperbolic to assume that they would have been actually crucified.
That being said. Bring it on. Prosecute anyone involved.
The Main Gauche of Mild Reason
I might’ve made this point before, but it’s already apparent (via previous reporting by Wheeler) that the administration skated around protocol by NOT briefing the Minority Leader (Gephardt) on these techniques at the time. This is important, because even if Pelosi new something about it at the time, there’s not much she could’ve done about it. I’m sure the Bush admin would’ve loved to prosecute her for “leaking” information by complaining to Gephardt.
Awesom0
I guess for a lot of people, legalistic arguments trump moral ones…
Xenos
Legal arguments do not trump moral ones, but moral judgments ought to take into account legal constraints on the parties involved.
TenguPhule
Fixed your title post, John.
Joel
Part of me wants to believe this is true, because I want to see the democrats that rubberstamped Bush’s policies punished in some way for their past actions. But I’m going to have to wait and see, especially because some trusted (at least for me, right now) voices have raised alarms about this report.
mvr
@Comrade Darkness:
This point about a structural flaw about how oversight happens is important. While I’m skeptical that the relevant memos present good evidence about who was told what when (given their seeming after the fact nature of their construction if I understand their origin correctly) the point has been made that anyone who was briefed and really tried to do something would likely have faced prosecution. That’s plausible, and even if it might be true that they should have taken that chance, we don’t want a system that relies on people being willing to take such a risk to get genuine oversight.
I think all of this points to another reason why more investigation is in order — not just to punish the guilty, but to reform how things are done so that this does not easily happen again.
Awesom0
Legal arguments do not trump moral ones, but moral judgments ought to take into account legal constraints on the parties involved.
Again, it’s the same thing as a soldier disobeying a clearly illegal order from his/her commander.
Courage and conviction require backbone and the willingness to make sacrifices in order to stand up for what is right. Using legalese to justify complicity in war crimes is a clear indicator that the person lacks both, as do their apologists.
Sometimes things are just wrong.
Mr. Stuck
Well, one thing seems certain, or more certain, at this point. The CIA, by putting out a report based largely on “recollections” of CIA personnel who have also been accused in this sorry ordeal, and now accusing the Speaker of the House of complicity in torture, the odds of an independent “Truth” commission got raised by much. I tend to grant more credence to the accused lawmakers at this point, knowing the CIA history of deception in matters like this. But who knows what really happened? The devil will be in the details of what and how much were they told and under what strictures. And more importantly, did they proactively support it. Otherwise, everything is currently overheated speculation, one way to the other.
DanSmoot'sGhost
Still trolling your own blog, eh guys?
You know what, John? YOU gave us the frigging Bush administration. YOU voted for them twice. Maybe we should investigate you?
This phony outrage is nothing but a goddam cover for the fact that you and your stupid friends gave us a security-at-any-cost government for sixty years but don’t want to take responsibility for it.
Don’t bother with the “Fuck you, TZ, I never supported torture” argument. That’s a goddam lie. You supported government that shrugged off the Constitutional checks on executive power, operated in secret, and did whatever the fuck it wanted. So this is what you got. Own it.
Martian Buddy
It’ll probably sound naive, but this whole business about “…but Pelosi knew too!” finally made me realize what bipartisanship means to the GOP — it’s a way of diffusing guilt to avoid blowback. It explains why they’ve been recoiling from Obama’s outstretched hand like vampires at an all-you-can-eat garlic bar.
srv
If I knew, obsolutely, that we were torturing people at Bagram in 2002/2003, then there isn’t any excuse for any Dems and those who apologize for them.
To wit, you immoral creeps. And as for undeniable evidence, the foreign press reported the Bagram coroner assessing one or two deaths in 2002 as murder sometime later in 2002 or at the latest, early 2003. Way, way before Abu Grahib.
These dem apologists make Peggy Noonan look courageous.
Awesom0
Related to srv’s point…
A huge justification people are using in this hypothetical conversation is that some Dems can’t be held accountable because they might have been prosecuted for leaking classified information.
By 2004, it was widely known – and reported on in the press – that we were waterboarding people and using other torture methods. At that point, the cat was out of the bag. Why didn’t they come out about it then? Why did they continue to let it go on for another 4 years? They could have easily come out against it at that point without disclosing any classified information that wasn’t already available to the public.
I’m not actually saying any of this happened, but I am distressed that so many Democrats are so willing to use this as a defense in the event it is.
John Cole
@Awesom0: BEcause it would be used against them in the 2004 election and they would be portrayed as soft on terror and wanting to cut and run. But we did that to the Democrats anyway, and I say we, because TZ/Smoot/PPGaz is right in one regard, I was firmly a Republican in 2004.
TenguPhule
But we forgive you anyway,
You just must spend the rest of your life helping to destroy the GOP as your penance.
Hypatia
@Awesom0:
I guess that depends on your definition of widely known.
And people who actively support torture (that is, figure out how to make it seem legal, hide that effort, and then push the torture program for years), what are they, pray tell? Seems to me they are much worse than cowards.
Awesom0
John: I know very well it would have been used against them. Courage often requires one to take a stand even if it’s politically unpopular. I wasn’t a Republican in 2004, but I do understand one of the reasons they kept winning; Democrats looked so weak and feckless. They were scared to stand up for what they believed in and the public didn’t respect this. If they wouldn’t stand up confidently for their own positions, how could we trust them to defend the country? This isn’t a justification mind you, just an explanation.
We’ve come to expect so little of our leadership and we’re now reaping the consequences. I say, “enough.” It’s time to demand more from our leaders. It’s time to demand some courage and courage often requires sacrifice.
The truly courageous people, the ones we lionize throughout history are those willing to risk everything in order to stand up for the right choice. There’s a reason the picture of that anonymous Chinese man blocking a column of tanks in Tienanmen Square is so iconic.
Democrats submitting/tacitly endorsing torture because they were scared of being run out of office is just friggin pathetic. I don’t respect them and I don’t trust them to stand up for me when hard decisions need to be made again.
Obama won because he grew a pair (relative to the competition) and had the courage to argue un-apologetically for his beliefs.
gwangung
Sure they can be held accountable.
They just have to wait their turn.
Awesom0
And people who actively support torture (that is, figure out how to make it seem legal, hide that effort, and then push the torture program for years), what are they, pray tell? Seems to me they are much worse than cowards.
I call them criminals and I think they should be treated as such.
Do not think – even for a moment – that I am defending the people who brought us this policy. They are thugs and murderers.
I guess that depends on your definition of widely known.
Abu Gharib (sp?) anyone?
@gwangung: Amen to that.
someguy
Just a couple points here.
1) The CIA is no doubt expert at ginning up evidence to implicate anybody they want in any scandal they wish to generate. It’s their job to do dirty tricks, right? So are you going to trust them, and their former Republican overseer and chief Goss, who was a CIA case officer before going to Congress, or are you going to trust Speaker Pelosi on this?
2) Assuming they were in fact briefed on this, the Democrats were in no position to do anything until 2006. Even now, polls show that the majority in the U.S. are in favor of torturing Al Qaida – guess they’ll need to recycle the Nazis “we had no idea” defense when the U.S. is eventually brought to heel. So anyways, what were the Dems going to do in the face of the Republican majority – take it to the public and get voted out of office, or run to Alberto Gonzales or John Ashcroft to get prosecutions started? They’d have been lucky to not get disappeared on one of those clandestine CIA flights, or mysteriously shot down during a visit to Iraq, for voicing disapproval.
3) Now that the Dems are looking to enforce the law against these bastards, look at the ‘evidence’ leaking out. Yet we didn’t see any of these leaks before. Mighty convenient, isn’t it? And isn’t it convenient that the people hit hardest are the ones best positioned to cause trouble for the CIA?
The way you people cut and run from the only party that advances your interests makes me sick. The Dems had their backs up against the wall for 6 years and stuck up for you people despite half of you being cheerleaders for the Repukes and the latest Bush War for Oil. Now you find out what kind of shit they had to eat just to keep a skin in the game, and you’re getting all huffy about it. This is politics, and politics ain’t beanbag; it’s more important that Pelosi and crew are pushing for prosecutions now, and that they follow through, than that they may have been at some briefings (conducted for later blackmail purposes, obviously) conducted back in 2002.
Dennis-SGMM
Now we’re really, really scared (From HuffPo)
As if they left a stone unturned investigating Clinton.
Awesom0
@ someguy:
A broad majority still hates Congress (both parties) because they see them as shiteaters and not worthy of respect!!!
When are the apologists going to realize this?
Okay, I’m done hijacking this thread now…
gwangung
@someguy:
My point: The Party are not the politicians that lead it (or not lead as the case may be). Plenty of ways to push the Democratic Party into prosecution, but still make sure everyone who approved get what they deserve.
Too, this is not just a battle of political institutions. There has to be a campaign to generate outrage and increase that 49% against torture to a much higher number.
georgia pig
All we know now is that Pelosi was briefed on “enhanced interrogation techniques.” We don’t know if that disclosure included disclosure of an intent to waterboard or other forms of torture. Even if the briefing did include waterboarding, by Pelosi’s account, there was no disclosure to her that specific acts of torture had already been performed. These “documents” don’t appear to contradict that. For the harrumphing moralizers out there, thought is not a crime. The CIA could have changed their minds about the legality of those techniques any time before they actually did anything, at which point they would not have committed any crime. In contrast, if Pelosi had blown the whistle based on what she had been briefed on, she would have committed a crime. She took an oath uphold the laws of the United States. Some here appear to think disclosing classified info is some trivial matter. Remember when Cheney et al decided to selectively disclosed classified information because they felt morally justified? Now, if Pelosi had known they had actually committed torture, that’s another matter, but there is no evidence of that yet. This is what rule of law means. It has a cost, but a worthwhile one.
RH Potfry
So in summary, while the Democrats appear to be entirely complicit in water-boarding, and, one might argue, they’ve further failed their constituents by lying through their sanctimonious teeth about their approval, it’s far more important to remember that George Bush is evil.
asiangrrlMN
I truly don’t care if someone has a D or an R after his or her name. If said Congress person knew about the torture being employed, said person NEEDS to be investigated and prosecuted. If Nancy Pelosi knew, go after her. However, I am not sure I trust the CIA to tell the truth in this matter.
Awesom0
She took an oath uphold the laws of the United States.
Dear god man. Have you completely ignored the fact that whistle blowing to expose CRIMINAL ACTS is not illegal. In fact, it is required. As other commentors have noted: It is not illegal for a enlisted man to disobey his superior (and he is OBLIGATED to report him) if he is giving orders in violation of the law.
The same principle applies here! Again, as other commentors have noted; by 2004 all this shit was out in the open, yet they remained quiet (assuming they had full knowledge) and let it go on for 4 more years.
Sounds an awfully lot to me like you’re venturing dangerously close to being a torture apologist – albeit from the Democratic side of the aisle.
Awesom0
“As I noted in other comments”, I meant to write. Wow, my brain is really getting scrambled by all this strange logic floating around here today.
And yes, I lied. Thread hijacking continues, but I super-duper, double-dog, snakebite promise to stop now.
Mr. Stuck
And you sir, sound an awful lot like a lynch mob. And it was not all out in the open by 2004, unless you include news articles, rumor and innuendo. The details matter here, and until we really know what happened with a real investigation and not info from anonymous CIA persons and GOP congresscritters with an agenda, how bout hanging up your rope. You may be right in the end, and we can collect some dem scalps if the facts support it.
And BTW Georgia Pig, I think your spot on.
gwangung
Yup.
It doesn’t have to be done NOW. It just has to be done.
OfayMcCrackerson
And it was not all out in the open by 2004, unless you include news articles, rumor and innuendo.
And mountains of photographs (some so incredibly gruesome and graphic, they have never been released) graphically showing torture and murder at Abu Gharib. I seem to remember them splashed across the front pages of every major newspaper worldwide.
Oh yeah, and there was the big congressional fight over the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which sought to ban some forms of torture.
Jesus Christ, and I thought Republicans were good at rewriting history! That it was widely known through innuendo, my ass…
Patriot
Coming up with a memo circulated by the esteemed Porter Goss seems strangely parallel to, and a continuation of, the blackmailing smear project started years ago by the Republicans responsible for ordering and then ordering others, because they were too chickenshit, to carry out their torture.
In case anyone doesn’t know it, that’s the Republican version of bipartianship: if we go down, by God, we’re taking you with us and we’ll do anything to do anything to take you down if you are even going to think about fucking with us for being war criminals. We’re the Nazis. You’re not. We’re the crime family. You’re not. That’s the type of poorly organized crime bullshitters who we let take over this country.
What are the historians going to call us? Certainly, not the Greatest Generation. Probably the Worst for letting no good, chickenhawks, bullies, cowards, rich boys, two-bit penny-ante liars, crooks, thieves and pieces of shit ruin the country.
Why would anything believe anything thing these assholes said, even in the highly unlikely event they ever even have to testify oath? They’re lying now and will be lying then. They’re criminals. That’s what criminals do.
Mr. Stuck
@OfayMcCrackerson:
We were primarily talking about waterboarding, And the innuendo was whether or not a top down torture program was responsible for what happened at Gitmo, or more likely a top down program created the atmosphere that allowed Gitmo to happen. There have been several trials military, several commissions and other inquirees, and none of them had stated with proof that that was the case. Not until the Bush admin. admit to it in 2008 did we have that proof and not until Obama released the Bybee memos have we had the details to that proof, that was followed with the recent Senate report.
If you have rock solid proof that dems co-conspired with repubs to create a torture program ala the Bybee manifesto, and acted to perpetuate it, then bring it, other wise you can join awesome and the lynch mob.
Just being told vaguely something might happen doesn’t cut it. And knowing the Bushies, they did just that to cover their asses when it hit the fan. And to get concerned dems to go hysterical and eat their own before knowing the whole truth. You are proof it is working.
Little Dreamer
@someguy:
If the enemy had been another country, and it’s adherents (fighters) were part of that country’s protective force, yes. There is an ideology problem here, the Bushies decided that the overriding factor is that since al Qaeda was not a sovereign enemy, none of that stuff mattered and we could do whatever we wanted to them because they apparently were just like renegade pirates in Cheney’s mind (never mind the fact that they were (at least to my knowledge) all citizens of countries that had sovereignty, that wasn’t apparently ever taken into account). BushCo treated them like men without countries.
Comrade Darkness
@someguy: The way you people cut and run from the only party that advances your interests makes me sick. The Dems had their backs up against the wall for 6 years and stuck up for you people despite half of you being cheerleaders for the Repukes and the latest Bush War for Oil.
Waaay too much in that post to respond to it all, especially since I have a deadline . . . but I have to comment. I understand what you are saying, except, that it’s a bit steeped in hyperbola. The dem leadership who are acting in the best interest of the country deserve all the support the people can muster for them. But they are replaceable. Once they think they aren’t, the game’s over no matter who they are. The “party” on this side of the aisle isn’t the end game, it’s a tool. If it isn’t serving the needs of the people involved it needs an overhaul.
Pelosi and her ilk LET their backs be pushed up against the wall. They did not stick up for the issues. They LET themselves get drowned out by demonstrating an utter inability to articulate even the most basic tenets of humanity, let alone politics. They were weak. That makes them poor representatives and it’s way past time they were replaced. They work for us, we’re all a team, and I’m happy to have their back but it’s impossible to guard the back of someone completely lacking a spine. The Bushies rendered the dems into a cadre of battered wives. Feel sorry for them, sure. But I feel waaay more sorry for us.
On the topic of what choice did they have? Well, you know, everyone needs to have a line they’ve drawn. The one where once the organization you’re in has crossed it, you walk away, you tell everyone why you walked away, and in this case you stand at the press conference stand and you dare Bush to fucking come and arrest you.
Awesom0
@Mr. Stuck:
Let me make one thing clear, because I think it has become lost in the conversation; I am referring to a hypothetical situation here. I am saying “if” the allegations against Pelosi, Rockefeller, etc, were 100% true, then I think they should be held accountable. I am not for one minute suggesting these allegations are true. I think they’re likely gross distortions at best. I’m inclined to believe this is nothing more than the GOP acting like a bunch of 4th graders and breaking out the, “but everyone else was doing it too” defense.
I am upset because it appears that some people here have clearly stated they would still defend Pelosi, Rockefeller, etc, if it turned out these nutty allegations were true. I see this as a willingness to ignore and/or defend torture.
Torture is pure, sadistic evil and has deeply corrosive effects on society. To rationalize it, we have to tell ourselves that the threat is so great, our enemines so cunning and inhuman, that we have to justify the unjustifiable. We build our enemies up and fill our people full of fear. Fear breeds hate.
Conservatives have been capitalizing on the blinding effects of fear and hate for the past 8 years to bring us policy after policy which enshrines their power and methodically strips everyone else of theirs. The Bush Administration officials and much of the Conservative establishment who designed, supported and carried out a policy of torture are thugs and cowards.
This is why I’m so damn emotional about this issue. Again, I don’t believe these allegations, but I do protest against those who would defend them if they were true.
Freedom requires eternal vigilance.
Mr. Stuck
I haven’t read the whole thread, but haven’t seen anyone saying if the allegations are true that dems anywhere should not be held accountable. Though there usually is one person here that generally holds those views.
Maybe you are new, but the general consensus is on any issue at BJ, if dems are guilty too, then they pay the price. We have just seen too much mouth breathing hysterical allegations that usually turn out to be false in the end. The Bush lie machine has made every one a little crazy, and still the effects linger.
Otherwise, I agree with your synopsis of torture, and want to find out just what happened the past 8 years, then pass judgments to the confirmed guilty.
InflatableCommenter
Whatever your position on EIT or torture, whether you agree with me or Dick Cheney or Keith Olbermann ….
You need to watch the first 15 minutes of the Ed Show today, hosted by Larry O’Donnell. A full throated discussion of what is and what is not torture and whether it should be used.
Fascinating. I hope they put it up on the website, since the Ed Show does not seem to rebroadcast after its live origin.
Awesom0
@Mr. Stuck:
There have been quite a few posts where multiple people have explicitly used excuses ranging from, “they couldn’t be held accountable because it was classified information”, to, “What else were they gonna do, they had to remain silent, they wouldn’t have been reelected.”
I’ve been a very long time reader – and mostly lurker – here and I fully agree with you that most commentors here are perfectly willing to hold both parties accountable if they are guilty of war crimes. My comments are not aimed at them.
They’re aimed at the people I disagree with because I had an annoying week at work and they make for convenient targets. I think for this weekend, it’s decaf and relaxing music for me…
InflatableCommenter
You may or may not be referring to me, but I will make it easy for you. First of all, there is nothing to hold them accountable for. For a variety of reasons, not the least of which is, in most situations the information gleaned at intelligence briefings is by law considered classified and cannot be revealed by the people getting the briefings. You cannot put people in a situation like that and then “hold them accountable” later for knowing something they were told not to reveal under penalty of law.
But that is just a sideshow to the real issue. The real issue is that the people, over half a century, demanded, and got, a government whose mission was to provide security at any cost, to hell with the details. And if you want a good idea of how that works in practice, read the preceding paragraph. That’s what you get when you create a government like that.
Pretending now, in the face of such facts, and in the face of a public that even now is not willing to have itself, or its hired goons (for example, the Cheney administration), held accountable, and to stamp feet and wave arms and act out this phony self righteousness is not just ugly and ineffective, it’s fucking disgusting. And it’s a cover for previous failures by the very people doing the foot stomping.
Where was the outrage, and the demands for justice, in 2004 when there was an ELECTION going on that could have fired these people, and it was pretty much known that the game had been rigged? That intel had been cooked? That waterboarding had been used?
Newsweek.
This crap is not news. Not at all. And even if it were, it pales in comparison to real moral outrages that have been known about for years and about which people were silent.
Mr. Stuck
@Awesom0:
Sounds like a winner!
Mr. Stuck
@InflatableCommenter:
Never heard of ya, thankfully.
Little Dreamer
It does re-run, very late at night, several hours after the initial run.
Kenneth Almquist
Pelosi may have been told that the CIA was performing waterboarding, but I think it’s quite a leap to go from there to suggest that Pelosi knew that the CIA was torturing people. Today it’s common knowledge that waterboarding is torture, and has been punished as a war crime. But it wasn’t common knowledge prior to the public controvery over the Bush Administration’s use of the technique. Certainly I didn’t know it. The Bush Administration had OLC lawyers write opinions asserting that waterboarding was not torture, so it hardly seems likely that Pelosi was given a briefing indicating that waterboarding was torture.
Pelosi may have been told that the CIA was performing waterboarding, but I thinkPelosi may have been told that the CIA was performing waterboarding, but I think it’s quite a leap to go from there to suggest that Pelosi knew that the CIA was torturing people. Today it’s common knowledge that waterboarding is torture, and has been punished as a war crime. But it wasn’t common knowledge prior to the public controvery over the Bush Administration’s use of the technique. Certainly I didn’t know it. The Bush Administration had OLC lawyers write opinions asserting that waterboarding was not torture, so it hardly seems likely that Pelosi was given a briefing indicating that waterboarding was torture.
Certain people in the Executive branch had an obligation to make an informed decision about torture. This includes the people who carried out the interrogations, the people in the chain of command who ordered the interrogations, and the lawyers who provided advice on the legality of torture. Members of Congress have no such obligation. Yes, Congress has an obligation to provide oversight, but that doesn’t mean that every single briefing to Congress has to be investigated. If Pelosi was given a briefing on “enhanced interrogation techniques” and it didn’t occur to her to wonder whether the CIA was breaking the law, that would be a failing on Pelosi’s part, but not a major one. We know that the CIA was breaking the law, so it seems like an obvious question now, but that doesn’t mean it was an obvious question at the time.