NationStates Jolt Archive

So she didn't know, then she knew but didn't, now she knew but thought it was something else, then she knew but didn't want to say anything...

Pelosi makes my head hurt.


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.

Article (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/05/cia_says_pelosi_was_briefed_on.html)


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi learned in early 2003 that the Bush administration was waterboarding terror detainees but didn’t protest directly out of respect for “appropriate” legislative channels, a person familiar with the situation said Monday.

Article (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22401.html)

I just never get tired of having my intelligence insulted by this fool.

I can't fathom why that imbecile is in charge of anything.

I thought the title said "Pepsi, you're killing me."

I thought the title said "Pepsi, you're killing me."

maybe he meant "Pelosi, you're water boarding me (with pepsi). "

I thought the title said "Pepsi, you're killing me."

Yeah that too. I need to cut down.

maybe he meant "Pelosi, you're water boarding me (with pepsi). "
Lulz.
Yeah that too. I need to cut down.

It's not that cancerous. :p

It's just like (not) paying taxes. She made an honest mistake -- that's all.

I can't fathom why that imbecile is in charge of anything.

She's not that stupid. Just a bit lacking in foresight, treacherous and not big on principle.

She's not that stupid. Just a bit lacking in foresight, treacherous and not big on principle.

... and next in line for the Presidency should something befall Obama and Biden.

With that in mind, I propose we all pray, even the atheists, for the continued safety and health of our President.

... and next in line for the Presidency should something befall Obama and Biden.

With that in mind, I propose we all pray, even the atheists, for the continued safety and health of our President.
As little as I have in common with Biden, I'd rather see him at the helm for the next 3 years, 252 days. Not Pelosi, though. Let's just go straight on through to Bob Byrd.

... and next in line for the Presidency should something befall Obama and Biden.

With that in mind, I propose we all pray, even the atheists, for the continued safety and health of our President.

He has so much going against him.
He is Irish (we have shot ever single Irish president we have had).
The Russians are also saying there is a cursed mark on his palm.
The signs look bad indeed.

When did she attend the Karl Rove School for Goalpost Movement?

He has so much going against him.
He is Irish (we have shot ever single Irish president we have had).
The Russians are also saying there is a cursed mark on his palm.
The signs look bad indeed.

Man he's just a walking gaffe machine, isn't he?

Man he's just a walking gaffe machine, isn't he?

There is the palm thing http://englishrussia.com/?p=2417

There is the palm thing http://englishrussia.com/?p=2417

Wow. Who has the time to analyze the man's palm?

I, personally, think it makes Obama more badass.

Wow. Who has the time to analyze the man's palm?

I, personally, think it makes Obama more badass.

That his palm predicts he will be shot at the height of his power ?

That his palm predicts he will be shot at the height of his power ?

I only looked at the image and read the little caption. It said "curse word", so I thought it meant like an expletive.

What you are saying though, is more disconcerting, although frankly, I see no reason to worry.

I only looked at the image and read the little caption. It said "curse word", so I thought it meant like an expletive.

What you are saying though, is more disconcerting, although frankly, I see no reason to worry.

Not curse word as in a bad word. Curse word as in you are cursed.

Not curse word as in a bad word. Curse word as in you are cursed.

Yeah. Damn the English language and the ways in which words can be used in place of others!

When did she attend the Karl Rove School for Goalpost Movement?

Dude this is way beyond goal post movement... She's not just moving the goal posts, she's ripping them down like a drunken college riot.

When did she attend the Karl Rove School for Goalpost Movement?

ever since it became a mandatory class for all Politicians.

There is the palm thing http://englishrussia.com/?p=2417

*looks at second image*

N... i...i...


Nii?

OMG... Obama is a Knight who says 'Nii'! :eek:

And then the OP link goes on to say:

"As this document shows, the Speaker was briefed only once, in September 2002. The briefers described these techniques, said they were legal, but said that waterboarding had not yet been used,"

More desperation from the crumbling G0P is all this is.

And then the OP link goes on to say:

"As this document shows, the Speaker was briefed only once, in September 2002. The briefers described these techniques, said they were legal, but said that waterboarding had not yet been used,"

More desperation from the crumbling G0P is all this is.

so... did they say 'waterboarding is one viable technique we have not yet used' or did they not include waterboarding in the description because it was not used at that time.

kinda on the vague side no?

*looks at second image*

N... i...i...


Nii?

OMG... Obama is a Knight who says 'Nii'! :eek:

you know by discovering this you have cursed Obama to lose the next election.
Imagine the debate when Obama's opponent says it a few times, and Obama freaks out like a mad man. No one want to elect someone who can't stand it.

so... did they say 'waterboarding is one viable technique we have not yet used' or did they not include waterboarding in the description because it was not used at that time.

kinda on the vague side no?

Well it seems like there should have been another memo that says along the lines of "We are NOW using the waterboards. Is that Ok with you?"

you know by discovering this you have cursed Obama to lose the next election.
Imagine the debate when Obama's opponent says it a few times, and Obama freaks out like a mad man. No one want to elect someone who can't stand it.

as a Knight who SAYS Nii... wouldn't it be Obama who says "Eckie eckie eckie zoopang zowowiee!"

Well it seems like there should have been another memo that says along the lines of "We are NOW using the waterboards. Is that Ok with you?"

there should be a memo like that... :D

as a Knight who SAYS Nii... wouldn't it be Obama who says "Eckie eckie eckie zoopang zowowiee!"




watch how Arthur defeats them. The knights who formally said Nii can't stand the word IT.

He has so much going against him.
He is Irish (we have shot ever single Irish president we have had).


No bad thing, the bastards are always causing trouble.

Man he's just a walking gaffe machine, isn't he?

Don't forget every racist jackass with a shotgun (and a good many racist jackasses have shotguns) would probably like to kill him.

watch how Arthur defeats them. The knights who formally said Nii can't stand the word IT.

Aaarrrrrgggghhh! how dare you say that word to ME!!
juNII

:p

Aaarrrrrgggghhh! how dare you say that word to ME!!
juNII

:p

If McCain had just mixed that word into his debate speeches Obama would have looked like he was having a massive seizure.

Don't forget every racist jackass with a shotgun (and a good many racist jackasses have shotguns) would probably like to kill him.

Sadly, that's true, although probably more for Obama.

Something tells me that modern racists have less of a problem with Biden than they do Obama. To them: Irish > Black.

Don't forget every racist jackass with a shotgun (and a good many racist jackasses have shotguns) would probably like to kill him.What, even the 'black' ones?

When did she attend the Karl Rove School for Goalpost Movement?

Its required for all Speakers of the House.

Jon Stewart summed up the Pelosi torture issue nicely

The Waffle House - http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=227326&title=Waffle-House

This is the end of any chance for crimes against humanity trial. As god knows who else was told and wont risk their political career having it brought to light during the trial.

Maybe the answer lies in politicians getting Pentagon briefings but have to promise tro abide by secrecy rules. This means that politicians who want to continue to be briefed have to wait till these stories become news and have entered the public domain.

I question why Right Wing Republicans want to point the finger at Democrats when it was Bush and Cheney who ordered the torturing of detainees.

Wanting to share the guilt? Very human to do that.

Maybe I'm the only person still listening to Cheney - but didn't he just basically say that she wasn't briefed?

There is the palm thing http://englishrussia.com/?p=2417

Is it just me or does that say 'Wii''?

She's not that stupid. Just a bit lacking in foresight, treacherous and not big on principle.

Sounds like the qualities most commonly evidenced in Speakers of the House since...fuck, the Amphibian, mayhaps?

Article (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22401.html)

I just never get tired of having my intelligence insulted by this fool.

Stop reading right-wing rags which are insulting your intelligence by posting trash.

Here is some common sense (http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20090511/cm_thenation/1434749)

Pelosi participated in those briefings as a relatively new member of the leadership team of a minority caucus in a House of Representatives that after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was dramatically deferential to the executive branch.

In other words, it is absurd to suggest that she was -- or could have been -- a definitional player in the outlining or implementation of schemes to employ cruel and unusual punishment to extract dubious information from prisoners of the United States government.

Stop reading right-wing rags which are insulting your intelligence by posting trash.


The Washington Post (my first source) is the local left-leaning paper, Sport. Conservatives around here read the Washington Times.

This doesn't have to be a left vs. right thing, either. This is about Pelosi, who (I hope) doesn't exactly represent liberal though in general.

You fail. Try again.

And now the CIA is lying, am I the only one getting a mental image of Pelosi in a deep hole, and she's just digging it deeper with a shovel?

Pelosi accuses CIA of lying in torture timeline

(05-15) 04:00 PDT Washington - -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently said her motto is "The best preparation for combat is combat."

With both guns blazing at an extraordinary news conference Thursday, the Democrat from San Francisco made good on that, accusing the CIA of lying when the agency said she was told about torture in 2002.

In doing so, Pelosi turned a distraction into a conflagration. She had little choice after two weeks of Republican accusations that it was she who was lying, accompanied by a leaked CIA timeline that said she had been briefed on Sept. 4, 2002, that "enhanced interrogation techniques" - a euphemism for torture - "had been employed."

Democrats quickly closed ranks behind the speaker. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, made clear whom she believes.

"I've know Nancy a long time," Feinstein said. "We lived a few houses apart for a couple of decades. I've never known her not to be truthful. Let me put that on the record."

Feinstein had this to say about the CIA, now headed by fellow Californian Leon Panetta of Monterey:

"The CIA on this issue is in a defensive mode. Who knows whether what they're saying is right or wrong? The CIA is not an agency that is above not telling the truth."

Republicans contend that Pelosi had known all along that that top al Qaeda suspects were being harshly interrogated for information on future plots, but only called it torture after the interrogations became public and inflamed her liberal base. They say it is unfair to investigate former Bush officials if Pelosi was also complicit.

Pelosi waited for her regular weekly news conference to address the issue, after a trip to Iraq had left unanswered for nearly a week media reports fueled primarily by GOP sources making accusations.

"Yes, I am saying that they are misleading - that the CIA was misleading the Congress," Pelosi said. She said she would "be very happy" if the CIA would release the notes from the 2002 briefing so that everyone could see for themselves. She repeated her call for a truth commission to air the facts.

Rare political damage

There is little doubt that Pelosi has sustained rare political damage, with even liberal late-night comedian Jon Stewart joking about her claim that Bush officials told her they had legal grounds to use torture but had not actually used it. The uproar has arrived at a delicate juncture when Pelosi faces a daunting challenge enacting President Obama's first-year agenda, including health care reform.

Yet those who think Pelosi is in any danger of being driven from power, in the manner of such past speakers as Newt Gingrich or Jim Wright, underestimate her strength, steadily cultivated over 22 years in Congress since arriving as a San Francisco backbencher in 1987. Pelosi's hallmark achievement has been to unify Democrats, not just her Bay Area allies but conservative Southern and rural Democrats. There is no sign that they will abandon her now.

Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, a top Pelosi confidant, said it was "ludicrous" to think Pelosi is in any political danger. "Obviously, it's an attempt by the architects and promoters of torture to try somehow to shift the blame to Democrats when for six, seven years, this is what they did," Miller said. "She's made her statement, and she made her record very clear."

Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, said he was "a little shocked" when asked three days ago whether Pelosi was in trouble. So Thursday, as the Pelosi news conference was blaring on every cable TV network, he said, "I've been asking around on the (House) floor, and people just look at me like I'm nuts."

If anything, Pelosi's no-prisoners stance may build support for the truth commission she has advocated to determine how decisions about the wars in Iraq and on terror were made. Her call for such a commission last month touched off the storm that has now engulfed her.

Pelosi accused the Bush administration of "misinforming" Congress not only about torture but about weapons of mass destruction as a way of pushing its war agenda with minimal interference from Congress.

"Let's get it straight," she said. "The Bush administration has conceived a policy. The CIA comes to the Congress, withholds information about the timing and the use of (torture). We later find out that it had been taking place before they even briefed us about the legal opinions and told us that they were not being used."

GOP leader's perspective

Republican House leader John Boehner of Ohio said Pelosi's responses "continue to raise more questions than provide answers." He said it is "hard for me to imagine that anyone in our intelligence area would ever mislead a member of Congress."

Marc Sandalow, former Washington bureau chief for The Chronicle who covered Pelosi for 20 years and wrote her biography, "Madame Speaker," in 2008, said that what is clear is that "somebody's not telling the truth, either Nancy Pelosi or somebody at the CIA. And there is nothing in Nancy Pelosi's long public history to suggest that she lies. Hardball politics, yes. Lying, no."

Pelosi is also a notorious stickler for protocol. It comes as little surprise that she would leave it to her successor on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Jane Harman, D-Venice (Los Angeles County), to send a letter to the White House objecting to the techniques after a later and apparently more complete briefing on Feb. 5, 2003, which Pelosi's national security aide attended.

Feinstein has opened what she expects to be a six- to eight-month Senate Intelligence Committee investigation of the interrogations. She opposes a truth commission because her committee can look at secret documents and take less time. With a commission, she said, "I don't think you'll really get a professional job. I think you'll get a very controversial work product. Now, our work product may be controversial, but it will be sound."

Echoing the concerns of many members on the House and Senate intelligence committees, she said her own experience with CIA briefings is that they tend to be "very bland, very theoretical and with very little said. You cannot take notes. ... There is no opportunity for a lot of questions."
Push to expand briefings

Feinstein and others are pushing legislation to expand such briefings to the full intelligence committees, including professional staff. Some experts concur that limiting briefings to as few as four members of Congress who are sworn to absolute secrecy obstructs Congress' obligation to oversee the executive branch.

The controversy puts Panetta in a difficult spot, defending the CIA against a fellow Californian. In a letter accompanying the timeline that implicates Pelosi, Panetta said the information is based on the best recollections of the CIA briefers at the time and may not be accurate.

Link (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/15/MN7U17KJC2.DTL)

Sounds like the qualities most commonly evidenced in Speakers of the House since...fuck, the Amphibian, mayhaps?

It's almost as if they just change shape....spooky....

The Washington Post (my first source) is the local left-leaning paper, Sport. Conservatives around here read the Washington Times.

This doesn't have to be a left vs. right thing, either. This is about Pelosi, who (I hope) doesn't exactly represent liberal though in general.

You fail. Try again.

Excellent job ignoring everything else.
This is a Republican hack job to try and somehow lay the blame on the Democrats for torture that the Republicans supported and are still saying we should be allowed to perform. Anyone who believes this tripe is either an idiot or being led around by the nose as a Republican comrade.

... and next in line for the Presidency should something befall Obama and Biden.

With that in mind, I propose we all pray, even the atheists, for the continued safety and health of our President.

Hillary's quest to become President will not stop at accidents for just the top two positions. Some how Pelosi would commit suicide.

Hillary's quest to become President will not stop at accidents for just the top two positions. Some how Pelosi would commit suicide.
Wouldn't another body in Ft Marcy Park raise some suspicion?

Excellent job ignoring everything else.
This is a Republican hack job to try and somehow lay the blame on the Democrats for torture that the Republicans supported and are still saying we should be allowed to perform. Anyone who believes this tripe is either an idiot or being led around by the nose as a Republican comrade.

The CIA just released documents showing Bush was a plant by the democrats to break up the republican party.

the CIA and military have instituted their special impeachment power to remove all democrats from congress and the senate, and make McCain president of the United States.

Maybe the answer lies in politicians getting Pentagon briefings but have to promise tro abide by secrecy rules. This means that politicians who want to continue to be briefed have to wait till these stories become news and have entered the public domain.

I question why Right Wing Republicans want to point the finger at Democrats when it was Bush and Cheney who ordered the torturing of detainees.

Wanting to share the guilt? Very human to do that.politicians keeping secrets? Muhahahahahahahaha!!!!

Is it just me or does that say 'Wii''?

must resist "Wii would like to play" joke...

My favorite quote from this: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/15/pelosi.waterboarding/index.html

is this:

"I think that the House has an absolute obligation to open an inquiry, and I hope there will be a resolution to investigate her. And I think this is a big deal. I don't think the speaker of the House can lie to the country on national security matters,"

Yeah. Lying to the country about National Security is the President's job. And the Vice-President. And the Secretary of Defense. And the Secretary of State. And various advisors and other officials(if they even bother to show up for congressional hearings). But when Nancy Pelosi does it, WHOA!!! That's going too far!!!

:p

My favorite quote from this: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/15/pelosi.waterboarding/index.html

is this:



Yeah. Lying to the country about National Security is the President's job. And the Vice-President. And the Secretary of Defense. And the Secretary of State. And various advisors and other officials(if they even bother to show up for congressional hearings). But when Nancy Pelosi does it, WHOA!!! That's going too far!!!

:p
lol

newt better watch out, if they open an investigation it wont be limited to mrs pelosi. does the republican party really think that it would be good for them for the whole matter of torture to be fully brought to light?

The CIA just released documents showing Bush was a plant by the democrats to break up the republican party.
pun intended? :D

It's almost as if they just change shape....spooky....

It's the shapeshifting reptilian aliens, it's gotta be.

Excellent job ignoring everything else.
This is a Republican hack job to try and somehow lay the blame on the Democrats for torture that the Republicans supported and are still saying we should be allowed to perform. Anyone who believes this tripe is either an idiot or being led around by the nose as a Republican comrade.

Yeah nice try dude. Just take what dignity you have left and move on. You accused me of using a right wing source. You were wrong bigtime. Now you want to move the goalposts.

This isn't now, nor has it ever been, about blaming Dems for Republican actions. It's about a Speaker of the House who fraked up bigtime and gambled that she could use the incident to sweep some of her opponents away and has now been caught in her own web. I find that marvelous.

...but there are always the fanboys, aren't there, who want to try and confuse the issue or misdirect people away from this with feeble arguments like "O NOEZ you used a republikin paper!!!'

Knowing that, I specifically did not do so. The Washington Post is quite friendly to the left, and even they see no reason to defend this fool.

Just let it go man.

Hillary's quest to become President will not stop at accidents for just the top two positions. Some how Pelosi would commit suicide.

To be honest, I'm not sure I wouldn't prefer Hilary over Pelosi.

lol

newt better watch out, if they open an investigation it wont be limited to mrs pelosi. does the republican party really think that it would be good for them for the whole matter of torture to be fully brought to light?

I think it needs to happen.

The problem is that torturing was going on and a LOT of people knew it but believed it was necessary. Now that it has come to light certain people want to use it to yank the rug out from under their political rivals.

In this case it's backfiring.

My favorite quote from this: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/15/pelosi.waterboarding/index.html

is this:



Yeah. Lying to the country about National Security is the President's job. And the Vice-President. And the Secretary of Defense. And the Secretary of State. And various advisors and other officials(if they even bother to show up for congressional hearings). But when Nancy Pelosi does it, WHOA!!! That's going too far!!!

:p

There is something to say when one runs a campaign saying water boarding is torture, and should not be allowed, while being complacent in the matter.

Yeah. Lying to the country about National Security is the President's job. And the Vice-President. And the Secretary of Defense. And the Secretary of State. And various advisors and other officials(if they even bother to show up for congressional hearings). But when Nancy Pelosi does it, WHOA!!! That's going too far!!!

:p

Sort of like how Dear Leader was all about never vetoing spending bills until the Democrats gained a majority. Then all of a sudden he started throwing more vetoes around than Don Corleone and started this convenient tripe about "wasteful spending".

I think it needs to happen.

The problem is that torturing was going on and a LOT of people knew it but believed it was necessary. Now that it has come to light certain people want to use it to yank the rug out from under their political rivals.

In this case it's backfiring.
what would it matter if mrs pelosi were briefed on it? congress wasnt asked to approve. they were TOLD about it. they (and especially the democrats) had no meaningful way to stop it.

so

investigate WHAT?

the only reason that the republicans are making such a fuss over this non-story about mrs pelosi--interesting that it might reflect on her character but irrelevant to torture--is to deflect from the newest revelation--that THE VP ORDERED TORTURE FOR POLITCAL REASONS.

some of us might be OK with waterboarding to keep people safe, but to establish a link between iraq and alqaeda? no one should be OK with that. the only way to get away from that is to start throwing mud at mrs pelosi as if what she was told in '02-'03 matters.

what would it matter if mrs pelosi were briefed on it? congress wasnt asked to approve. they were TOLD about it. they (and especially the democrats) had no meaningful way to stop it.





It is the job of the opposition party to prevent things like this from happening, or at least raise hell if they can't.
If they had gone public or threatened to go public with the information It would have atleast been opposition to tyranny.
All that is required for evil to win is for good men(women) to do nothing.

It is the job of the opposition party to prevent things like this from happening, or at least raise hell if they can't.
If they had gone public or threatened to go public with the information It would have atleast been opposition to tyranny.
All that is required for evil to win is for good men(women) to do nothing.
you cant go public with information revealed in these briefings. its illegal.

add that to the masterful job mr bush did in tricking the public into supporting the invasion of iraq and it may have landed mrs pelosi in prison.

you cant go public with information revealed in these briefings. its illegal.

add that to the masterful job mr bush did in tricking the public into supporting the invasion of iraq and it may have landed mrs pelosi in prison.

Is it also not illegal to remain complacent about torture ?
I believe it would make her an accessory by omission.
Of course this would make most of the House and Senate guilty. But I could deal with a clean sweep of the legislative branch.

Is it also not illegal to remain complacent about torture ?
I believe it would make her an accessory by omission.
Of course this would make most of the House and Senate guilty. But I could deal with a clean sweep of the legislative branch.
dunno.

if so, i have no problem with anyone who has broken the law being prosecuted for it.

dunno.

if so, i have no problem with anyone who has broken the law being prosecuted for it.

If you fail to report something illegal it is accessory after the fact.
If you fail to report it knowing this activity is ongoing it is accessory before and after the fact.
I believe federal whistler blower laws would have protected her as she would have been reporting something illegal.

If you fail to report something illegal it is accessory after the fact.
If you fail to report it knowing this activity is ongoing it is accessory before and after the fact.
I believe federal whistler blower laws would have protected her as she would have been reporting something illegal.
i dont think it can ever be proven exactly what that committee was told. no one was allowed to keep notes.

plus they told mrs pelosi specifically that they were abiding by the law. did they say "oh by the way we are torturing these guys?" i cant imagine that they did. they also told her that they had legal clearance. if you cant discuss it with other people, how can you parse out the implications of what you have been told? "enhanced interrogation" sounds rough but not illegal. until you run it by an expert you how can you possibly know what it means?

i dont think it can ever be proven exactly what that committee was told. no one was allowed to keep notes.

plus they told mrs pelosi specifically that they were abiding by the law. did they say "oh by the way we are torturing these guys?" i cant imagine that they did. they also told her that they had legal clearance. if you cant discuss it with other people, how can you parse out the implications of what you have been told? "enhanced interrogation" sounds rough but not illegal. until you run it by an expert you how can you possibly know what it means?

If being told something was legal by the justice department or the CIA under Bush is all that is needed to remove guilt of a crime then no one can be prosecuted for water boarding.
The CIA is saying they specifically told her about water boarding.
The CIA can always have their briefer testify to what was said and maybe have some aides present swap immunity for testimony.

Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law. More over her experience with writing laws and her poli sci degree she is either unqualified for the position she holds as speaker of the house or she knew full well that something horrendous was going on.

If being told something was legal by the justice department or the CIA under Bush is all that is needed to remove guilt of a crime then no one can be prosecuted for water boarding.
The CIA is saying they specifically told her about water boarding.
The CIA can always have their briefer testify to what was said and maybe have some aides present swap immunity for testimony.

Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law. More over her experience with writing laws and her poli sci degree she is either unqualified for the position she holds as speaker of the house or she knew full well that something horrendous was going on.
yeah the cia said that they specifically told her about waterboarding...

but we cant know what they said. the cia and the bush administration has a solid history of avoiding telling congress the details that they needed to know.

look at how many people TODAY, after being able to read the (horrifying) accounts and see the (horrifying) photos say that it wasnt so bad and wasnt illegal. i find it easy to believe that they can have told the "truth" in such a manner as to hide the reality of what they were doing.

If being told something was legal by the justice department or the CIA under Bush is all that is needed to remove guilt of a crime then no one can be prosecuted for water boarding.
The CIA is saying they specifically told her about water boarding.
The CIA can always have their briefer testify to what was said and maybe have some aides present swap immunity for testimony.

Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law. More over her experience with writing laws and her poli sci degree she is either unqualified for the position she holds as speaker of the house or she knew full well that something horrendous was going on.

Sounds about right to me. There is a third possibility..., she is getting up in years..., maybe she ought to be tested for the onslaught of Alzhimer's disease? :confused: It could just be that she doesn't remember being briefed.

Steny Hoyer must be laughing himself silly, after Pelosi failed to stop him from becoming the House Majority Leader. :p

yeah the cia said that they specifically told her about waterboarding...

but we cant know what they said. the cia and the bush administration has a solid history of avoiding telling congress the details that they needed to know.

look at how many people TODAY, after being able to read the (horrifying) accounts and see the (horrifying) photos say that it wasnt so bad and wasnt illegal. i find it easy to believe that they can have told the "truth" in such a manner as to hide the reality of what they were doing.

I can't imagine the CIA lying about anything over the last 8 years. It would be so out of character.

I can't imagine the CIA lying about anything over the last 8 years. It would be so out of character.
lolol

what was i THINKING??

but i am sort of hoping that the republicans (who have been so very stupid lately) will use this pelosi thing to push for an investigation of who knew what about torture.

Sounds about right to me. There is a third possibility..., she is getting up in years..., maybe she ought to be tested for the onslaught of Alzhimer's disease? :confused: It could just be that she doesn't remember being briefed.


The problem is - there's a triangle of evidence. There's the CIA, who will likely say or do whatever best advantages the CIA. There's Pelosi, who will likely do and say whatever best advantages Pelosi. And there's at least one Republican that has already come forward (with a conflicting story) who will likely say or do whatever best advantages the Republicans.

Dick Cheney recently said that Pelosi might not have been briefed. And everyone else has motive for expressing what they recall for personal gain. It's a difficult situation - and, short of actual MATERIAL evidence - the whole thing is a crapshoot at best.

yeah the cia said that they specifically told her about waterboarding...

but we cant know what they said. the cia and the bush administration has a solid history of avoiding telling congress the details that they needed to know.

look at how many people TODAY, after being able to read the (horrifying) accounts and see the (horrifying) photos say that it wasnt so bad and wasnt illegal. i find it easy to believe that they can have told the "truth" in such a manner as to hide the reality of what they were doing.

Again, I'm wondering if grandma Pelosi simply forgot that she'd been briefed and is now indignant that her memory is being questioned.

There is one thing in my mind that seems, while not perfect, exculpatory evidence, that this wasn't leaked to the Press, either at the time, during the Abu Graib fiasco, or after. So, either she was "playing ball" with the Bush Administration and forgot the entire interrogation/torture breifing, OR she really wasn't briefed.

There must be some records somewhere..., Maybe Dick Cheney knows? (evil laughter) Bwah hah hah hah haaa !!!

The problem is - there's a triangle of evidence. There's the CIA, who will likely say or do whatever best advantages the CIA. There's Pelosi, who will likely do and say whatever best advantages Pelosi. And there's at least one Republican that has already come forward (with a conflicting story) who will likely say or do whatever best advantages the Republicans.

Dick Cheney recently said that Pelosi might not have been briefed. And everyone else has motive for expressing what they recall for personal gain. It's a difficult situation - and, short of actual MATERIAL evidence - the whole thing is a crapshoot at best.
its embarrassing for mrs pelosi but there isnt a smoking gun to be had. there is only the possibility of distracting the news outlets from the real story--that dick cheney ordered waterboarding for political reasons.

yeah the cia said that they specifically told her about waterboarding...

but we cant know what they said. the cia and the bush administration has a solid history of avoiding telling congress the details that they needed to know.

Yeah we can, as far as the law is concerned. We investigate get the testimony of other people present. Were congressional aids there ? they seem a likely to swap testimony for immunity. If Congressional aids were not present we get the testimony of more junior congressmen, maybe not swapped for immunity but perhaps plea deals on lesser charges. In short do the same thing we normally do when criminals don't take notes(which is most of the time).

look at how many people TODAY, after being able to read the (horrifying) accounts and see the (horrifying) photos say that it wasnt so bad and wasnt illegal. i find it easy to believe that they can have told the "truth" in such a manner as to hide the reality of what they were doing.

Public opinion does not directly determine what is legal or illegal. More over she is in a position of authority where she should have at the bear minimum asked questions, if not challenge the procedures. I can not imagine a senior congresswoman to be so naive.

lolol

what was i THINKING??

but i am sort of hoping that the republicans (who have been so very stupid lately) will use this pelosi thing to push for an investigation of who knew what about torture.

To me - it doesn't matter.

I don't care if every single person in Washington knew.

What I care about, is who DID torture, who AUTHORIZED it, and who was directly INVOLVED.


The mainstream seems to have lost sight of that. :(

To me - it doesn't matter.

I don't care if every single person in Washington knew.

What I care about, is who DID torture, who AUTHORIZED it, and who was directly INVOLVED.


The mainstream seems to have lost sight of that. :(

If you charge them you also have to charge those who's complacency allowed it to happen. You can not selectively apply justice.

its embarrassing for mrs pelosi but there isnt a smoking gun to be had. there is only the possibility of distracting the news outlets from the real story--that dick cheney ordered waterboarding for political reasons.

The biggest upshot here is likely to be maintaining a working relationship with the CIA... or not. Everything else is foam.

Like you said, it's distracting eyes from real issues.

If you charge them you also have to charge those who's complacency allowed it to happen. You can not selectively apply justice.

"complacency" is not a crime.

If you charge them you also have to charge those who's complacency allowed it to happen. You can not selectively apply justice.

Sure you can. You can take testimony from anyone who was briefed, or might have a teeny little bit of information, and you can use that testimony in exchange for immunity. Happens all the time.

Again, I'm wondering if grandma Pelosi simply forgot that she'd been briefed and is now indignant that her memory is being questioned.

There is one thing in my mind that seems, while not perfect, exculpatory evidence, that this wasn't leaked to the Press, either at the time, during the Abu Graib fiasco, or after. So, either she was "playing ball" with the Bush Administration and forgot the entire interrogation/torture breifing, OR she really wasn't briefed.

There must be some records somewhere..., Maybe Dick Cheney knows? (evil laughter) Bwah hah hah hah haaa !!!
it was 7 years ago and she wasnt allowed to take notes or talk about it afterwards. i dont see how she could possibly remember anything but that she didnt come away from it with the understanding that they were already using waterboarding. maybe she didnt understand what they were telling her?

Yeah we can, as far as the law is concerned. We investigate get the testimony of other people present. Were congressional aids there ? they seem a likely to swap testimony for immunity. If Congressional aids were not present we get the testimony of more junior congressmen, maybe not swapped for immunity but perhaps plea deals on lesser charges. In short do the same thing we normally do when criminals don't take notes(which is most of the time).


Public opinion does not directly determine what is legal or illegal. More over she is in a position of authority where she should have at the bear minimum asked questions, if not challenge the procedures. I can not imagine a senior congresswoman to be so naive.
hey, like i said, i have no problem prosecuting anyone who broke the law.

"complacency" is not a crime.

I'm pretty certain it is, but they call it, "Criminal Negligence".:gas:

I'm pretty certain it is, but they call it, "Criminal Negligence".:gas:

there is no such crime called "criminal negligence".

I'm pretty certain it is, but they call it, "Criminal Negligence".:gas:

Is it possible you mean 'complicit' when you say 'complacent'?

Or, even further off base... are you actually referring to 'conspiracy'?

"complacency" is not a crime.

Failure to report a crime is being an accessory to that crime.

there is no such crime called "criminal negligence".

While there is no specific crime, it can certainly be called as an element to another named crime.

Try this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence

hey, like i said, i have no problem prosecuting anyone who broke the law.

Then let the investigations begin.
I am about the graduate University and I could win election in this small town if my congressman were impeached.

While there is no specific crime, it can certainly be called as an element to another named crime.

Yes, it can. Perhaps you missed the part where "a crime" and "an element of a crime" are not the same thing?

Try this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence

I'm well aware of the various mens rea both under common law and the model penal code. It's one of those things they taught me in law school. You know, that place where they also taught me that the fact that there is a mens rea element referred to as "criminal negligence" does in no way somehow make "complacency" a crime.

Do you even know what mens rea is, or how it relates to this? Seriously, why is it so hard for people to just say "you were right and I was wrong?" Why do they have to dig themselves in deeper?

Then let the investigations begin.
I am about the graduate University and I could win election in this small town if my congressman were impeached.

You're going to win a town election, based on what happens to a congressman?

Then let the investigations begin.
I am about the graduate University and I could win election in this small town if my congressman were impeached.
there ya go! who needs grad school when you can go to congress instead?

if democrats are investigated as well as members of the bush administration it cant be called political retribution, eh?

You're going to win a town election, based on what happens to a congressman?

this town is the major voting block in his congressional district. The rest is red necks on horse back. So yeah this town decides who goes to congress. Kinda funny because they add college students to their figures(population figures) but so few vote it gives control to the red necks in town.

Failure to report a crime is being an accessory to that crime.

No, it's not. Accessory liability requires far more than simply "doing nothing".

I love when NSG armchair lawyers lecture the real lawyers on the law.

Its particularly funny when they do it to Neo Art, because he doesnt take shit.

Do you even know what mens rea is, or how it relates to this?

Latin for, "guilty mind". And it goes to the level of culpability in a crime.

So, what did she know and when did she know it? If she thought there was a crime being perpetrated, then she ought to have done something.

I love when NSG armchair lawyers lecture the real lawyers on the law.

Its particularly funny when they do it to Neo Art, because he doesnt take shit.

To be fair, for all we know, Neo Art could be yet another armchair lawyer... :wink:

No, it's not. Accessory liability requires far more than simply "doing nothing".

going to wiki
I get.

An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal. The distinction between an accessory and a principal is a question of fact and degree:

* The principal is the one whose acts or omissions, accompanied by the relevant mens rea, are the most immediate cause of the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act").


furthermore I find
case law in the Nuremberg trials

"either knew or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known that the forces were committing or about to commit such crimes."


She was in a leadership position on the intelligence committee. She either knew or should have know what was going on. Furthermore she had a responsibility to act to prevent said crimes given her leadership position in at the time opposition party and on the intelligence committee.

Latin for, "guilty mind". And it goes to the level of culpability in a crime.

So, what did she know and when did she know it? If she thought there was a crime being perpetrated, then she ought to have done something.

Except you cant really be prosecuted for just having mens rea.

If I consider shootin someone, but I don actually do it, I didnt commit a crime.

To be fair, for all we know, Neo Art could be yet another armchair lawyer... :wink:

Neo Art demonstrates a level of legal understand that if he isnt really a lawyer, he has at least spent every waking moment for several years reading and studying the law.

this town is the major voting block in his congressional district. The rest is red necks on horse back. So yeah this town decides who goes to congress. Kinda funny because they add college students to their figures(population figures) but so few vote it gives control to the red necks in town.

So, you appeal to rednecks?

Neo Art demonstrates a level of legal understand that if he isnt really a lawyer, he has at least spent every waking moment for several years reading and studying the law.
People waste their years of free time doing less interesting things... ;)

To be fair, for all we know, Neo Art could be yet another armchair lawyer... :wink:

He's not. He doesn't even have a sofa, let alone an armchair. He's more of a futon lawyer. :p

So, you appeal to rednecks?

I appeal to whoever I need to get votes from

Latin for, "guilty mind". And it goes to the level of culpability in a crime.

So, what did she know and when did she know it? If she thought there was a crime being perpetrated, then she ought to have done something.

Should she have done something? Morally and ethically, perhaps so. Was she told? Perhaps so. Did she lie about being told? Perhaps so.

And all of that may very well be important questions to her constituents when it comes time to vote for her in 2010. But why the hell should this be investigated by Congress?

Let's say the worst possible scenario for Ms. Pelosi is true. Let's say she was flat out told by the CIA that they were torturing people. Let's say she knew it was illegal. Let's also say that when she stated she was never told, she intentionally, knowingly lied. She knew about it, she knew it was illegal, and she intentionally lied when asked if she knew. Let's say all of that is true.

Absolutely none of it is a crime.

She wasn't under oath when she stated that she was never told, so even if that's a lie, lying in those circumstances isn't illegal. She's under no legal obligation to report what she believes is a crime, just on its own, let alone a circumstance where a high ranking US congresswoman is told information in private, closed door, classified meetings with the US intelligence community.

Even taken at worst, none of the claims regarding her allege she did anything that's actually illegal. So what the hell is there for congress to investigate?

Except you cant really be prosecuted for just having mens rea.

If I consider shootin someone, but I don actually do it, I didnt commit a crime.


Welcome to Oceania. Welcome to the Ministry of Love.

Hey, we're doing our best, and recently, because I haven't seen any links or citations, NeoArt isn't backing up a lot of his assertions.

I appeal to whoever I need to get votes from

I doubt it. Especially if you're going to be fresh out of school. Even in Texas.

going to wiki
I get.


If you're going to quote wiki, don't cherry pick. Quote all the relevant sections. To whit:

To be convicted of an accessory charge, the accused must generally be proved to have had actual knowledge that a crime was going to be, or had been, committed. Furthermore, there must be proof that the accessory knew that his or her action, or inaction, was helping the criminals commit the crime, or evade detection, or escape.

Mere knowledge does not create accessory liability. There needs to be more than that.

Welcome to Oceania. Welcome to the Ministry of Love.

Hey, we're doing our best, and recently, because I haven't seen any links or citations, NeoArt isn't backing up a lot of his assertions.
you mean he has to link to an online law text book in order to satisfy you that he knows what he is talking about?

If you're going to quote wiki, don't cherry pick. Quote all the relevant sections. To whit:



Mere knowledge does not create accessory liability. There needs to be more than that.

Except Nuremberg in the case of war crimes says her leadership position within government requires her to act.

Hey, we're doing our best, and recently, because I haven't seen any links or citations, NeoArt isn't backing up a lot of his assertions.

Oh, you want citations? OK, let's stop with wiki bullshit and go to ACTUAL law:

Whoever, after the commission of a felony, harbors, conceals, maintains or assists the principal felon or accessory before the fact, or gives such offender any other aid, knowing that he has committed a felony or has been accessory thereto before the fact, with intent that he shall avoid or escape detention, arrest, trial or punishment, shall be an accessory after the fact

M.G.L. c 274 § 4

Note the bold. intent to aid is necessary. Mere knowledge is not enough.

He's not. He doesn't even have a sofa, let alone an armchair. He's more of a futon lawyer. :p
Damn Futon-buying, East-Coast, Ivy-League, Liberal Lawyer Elitists. :mad:

Except Nuremberg in the case of war crimes says her leadership position within government requires her to act.

Um, I hate to tell you this, but the language you cited? It comes directly from Article 28 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Article 28 is entitled "Responsibility of commanders and other superiors" and applies to military commanders only. Pelosi is not a military commander, so Article 28? Totally inapplicable to her. Also, that statute was adopted in the 90s, decades after Nuremburg. Do you have any citation that shows this language was actually used in Nuremburg?

Do your damned research.

Damn Futon-buying, West-Coast, Ivy-League, Liberal Lawyer Elitists. :mad:

East coast. The rest is true. :p

Damn Futon-buying, West-Coast, Ivy-League, Liberal Lawyer Elitists. :mad:

eh?

eh?

It would seem my Conservative Jargon is a bit rusty. :tongue:

eh?
you dont own an armchair?

Oh, you want citations? OK, let's stop with wiki bullshit and go to ACTUAL law:

Whoever, after the commission of a felony, harbors, conceals, maintains or assists the principal felon or accessory before the fact, or gives such offender any other aid, knowing that he has committed a felony or has been accessory thereto before the fact, with intent that he shall avoid or escape detention, arrest, trial or punishment, shall be an accessory after the fact


M.G.L. c 274 § 4

Note the bold. intent to aid is necessary. Mere knowledge is not enough.

Thank you. However, there's no reason to be angry. :hail:

Now, at the time the interrogations/tortures were going on, would Mrs. Pelosi while aiding the Bush Administration, know that there was an ongoing crime and if she knew it, then did she remain silent to avoid the penalties associated with being ancessory after the fact?

Thank you. However, there's no reason to be angry. :hail:

Now, at the time the interrogations/tortures were going on, would Mrs. Pelosi while aiding the Bush Administration, know that there was an ongoing crime and if she knew it, then did she remain silent to avoid the penalties associated with being ancessory after the fact?

huh? You got your intents backwards. Accessory liability is predicated on the intent to aid the principal avoid punishment

Merely knowing someone is committing a crime, and not saying anything, is not a crime, so she'd have no penalties to be afraid of. Accessory after the fact, also referred to at times as "aiding and abetting" is about allowing the principal perpetrator escape the law.

But I'll repeat, even if the worst allegations against Pelosi are true, the most she could be charged with is "knowing someone committed a crime" and "not telling the truth when under no legal obligation to tell the truth".

None of which are actual crimes. And thus there's nothing to investigate.

huh? You got your intents backwards. Accessory liability is predicated on the intent to aid the principal avoid punishment

Merely knowing someone is committing a crime, and not saying anything, is not a crime, so she'd have no penalties to be afraid of. Accessory after the fact, also referred to at times as "aiding and abetting" is about allowing the principal perpetrator escape the law.

Thanks again. I am operating on unfamiliar ground and I really DO appreciate your patience.

Now, in Mrs. Pelosi's case, there is talk (could be hear-say, I don't know) that she actually asked if anything more could be done to aid the interrogations.

Does that change the legal landscape at all?

There is something to say when one runs a campaign saying water boarding is torture, and should not be allowed, while being complacent in the matter.

Keep in mind that for quite a while, the Bush Administration denied that torture was even being done so had she objected publically, she probably would have been pounced on for revealing 'classified' material.

On the other hand, not going on written record for future revealment like some other Democrats have does show a distinct lack of concern.

That doesn't change the fact that she is being singled out for lying about things that turned out to be true after other people lied about them. :p

But I'll repeat, even if the worst allegations against Pelosi are true, the most she could be charged with is "knowing someone committed a crime" and "not telling the truth when under no legal obligation to tell the truth".

None of which are actual crimes. And thus there's nothing to investigate.

Id like to know, however, soley because I want to know if I want her in congress anymore.

You know, as sleazy as this stuff is, I'm not really all that bothered by Pelosi's current state, at least not to the "OMG investeagayshuns" level. Yeah, I'd like to slap her for being dumb, but not drive her out of her spot.

watch how Arthur defeats them. The knights who formally said Nii can't stand the word IT.

Yes and Clinton couldn't stand the word IS.

lolol

what was i THINKING??

but i am sort of hoping that the republicans (who have been so very stupid lately) will use this pelosi thing to push for an investigation of who knew what about torture.

Lets just fire all of them. Obama, the cabinet, and the entire congress. We will have a special election in November and no one in or has been in may run.

All new blood. That way we are guaranteed to chuck out the dead wood. Plus it sends a message to them all that if they screw up, we change the bathwater.

Better yet, lets return to our Constitutional roots and let the States pick them. Get the control back in the people's hands and out of national coffers.

Freaking typical. If Pelosi was rightwing and a republician, you would all be calling for blood. But since she's one of your own, its all good and she's just a victim of circumstance.

How's the saying go, its not illegal when we do it...

Can't stand the woman

Freaking typical. If Pelosi was rightwing and a republician, you would all be calling for blood. But since she's one of your own, its all good and she's just a victim of circumstance.

How's the saying go, its not illegal when we do it...

Remove all of them. Time to change the diapers.

Remove all of them. Time to change the diapers.
It would appear that you have a long wait ahead of you. :p