Pelosi

[Lurker]

The Dems misstepped when they tried to throw this at the departing administration.

This isn't something as petty as holding hearings over Presidential pardons, like the Republicans did to Clinton.

The funny thing is, the Dems will be placed in a very precarious position by actually having to thwart Reps attempts at a Congressional hearing, thereby showing the citizenry that the Dems are merely paying lip service to this. When they respond by protecting their own hides (and they will), it will give the Reps the image that they are unafraid of the truth, while the Dems try to hide it.

Where do you hear this stuff? The idea that Republicans are going to push for an investigation of Bush's torture regime is just laughable. The idea that people will think Republicans are unafraid of the truth when they see them focus entirely on which Democrats were briefed and not on the actual people that approved the techniques and implemented the programs is through the looking glass backwards.

[Embar Angylwrath]

The Dems misstepped when they tried to throw this at the departing administration.

This isn't something as petty as holding hearings over Presidential pardons, like the Republicans did to Clinton.

The funny thing is, the Dems will be placed in a very precarious position by actually having to thwart Reps attempts at a Congressional hearing, thereby showing the citizenry that the Dems are merely paying lip service to this. When they respond by protecting their own hides (and they will), it will give the Reps the image that they are unafraid of the truth, while the Dems try to hide it.

Where do you hear this stuff? The idea that Republicans are going to push for an investigation of Bush's torture regime is just laughable. The idea that people will think Republicans are unafraid of the truth when they see them focus entirely on which Democrats were briefed and not on the actual people that approved the techniques and implemented the programs is through the looking glass backwards.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/wor ... 89884.html

Mr Hoekstra said the CIA documents show that Ms Pelosi knew that detainees were being subjected to waterboarding but she is denying it because of political pressure. "Clearly her left wing is outraged that waterboarding was used," he said. "The bottom line is she and her key staff, they all knew about it."

The Republican congressman is calling for the release of more CIA documents that will go into detail about how much Congress knew about the interrogation techniques. He said yesterday that he is considering making a request for congressional hearings into what the intelligence committee knew.

Maybe not so laughable after all, eh?

[Lurker]

Repeating...

The idea that people will think Republicans are unafraid of the truth when they see them focus entirely on which Democrats were briefed and not on the actual people that approved the techniques and implemented the programs is through the looking glass backwards.

Also, the document doesn't show was Hoekstra said it shows. He's overreaching in an attempt to scare Democrats into not investigating.

[Ddrak]

There should be an open inquiry run by a nominally independent agent. That goes for any case of alleged misconduct in any of the three branches of government.

The fact Pelosi is looking pretty dirty is making both sides look like hypocrites. Pelosi is twisting and turning trying to defend herself in what may be an indefensible position and the talk radio nutjobs are twisting and turning trying to say how evil Pelosi is for allowing something they were already trying to spin as nothing more than schoolyard pranks.

Dd

[Harlowe]

There should be an open inquiry run by a nominally independent agent. That goes for any case of alleged misconduct in any of the three branches of government.

The fact Pelosi is looking pretty dirty is making both sides look like hypocrites. Pelosi is twisting and turning trying to defend herself in what may be an indefensible position and the talk radio nutjobs are twisting and turning trying to say how evil Pelosi is for allowing something they were already trying to spin as nothing more than schoolyard pranks.

Dd

Agree on all counts. Well said.

[Kulaf]

Repeating...

The idea that people will think Republicans are unafraid of the truth when they see them focus entirely on which Democrats were briefed and not on the actual people that approved the techniques and implemented the programs is through the looking glass backwards.

Also, the document doesn't show was Hoekstra said it shows. He's overreaching in an attempt to scare Democrats into not investigating.

I don't think it is backwards at all. Congress makes the laws. If they felt that the Executive was not interpreting law as they should then it is their duty as law makers to clarify the law. Both Republicans and Democrats as part of holding positions on the Intelligence committee knew what was going on and could have changed/clarified the law.....and done so without even divulging any classified information.

[Ddrak]

If they felt that the Executive was not interpreting law as they should then it is their duty as law makers to clarify the law.

Isn't interpreting the law the responsibility of the judiciary, not the legislature?

Dd

[Kulaf]

If they felt that the Executive was not interpreting law as they should then it is their duty as law makers to clarify the law.

Isn't interpreting the law the responsibility of the judiciary, not the legislature?

Dd

Final interpretation is yes. But since the Judiciary was not involved in this.....and there was no real recourse to get them involved.....then it becomes the responsibility of the branch that creates law to clarify or re-write it. They did this after the fact.....without Judiciary involvement.....when it all came out but failed to do so when first notified if they had issues with it at all.

[Ddrak]

But since the Judiciary was not involved in this.....and there was no real recourse to get them involved.....then it becomes the responsibility of the branch that creates law to clarify or re-write it.

Rubbish. If the Executive is disobeying the law then the Legislature can drag the Judiciary in through several very well travelled avenues from a special prosecutor to impeachment. The Executive disobeying the law does not mean it requires clarification or rewriting because you can't do that sort of thing retrospectively anyway.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

I think Kulaf's point was that since COngreee knew way back in the beginning that certain techniques were used, or could be used, they could have passed a law prohibiting their use, and stopped any further use of the techniques. But they didn't, and that makes them just as dirty as anyone else. They were complicit in thier silence.

[Lurker]

Since the briefings weren't to the full Congress and the Democrats weren't in a position to propose or pass legislation anyways, how were they supposed to stop this when it started? The Republicans certainly didn't care about the use of torture. As soon as the Democrats took over Congress in 2007 they passed legislation banning the use of waterboarding and Bush vetoed it. When Obama was sworn in he banned the use unilaterally.

[Ddrak]

I think Kulaf's point was that since COngreee knew way back in the beginning that certain techniques were used, or could be used, they could have passed a law prohibiting their use, and stopped any further use of the techniques. But they didn't, and that makes them just as dirty as anyone else. They were complicit in thier silence.

Given waterboarding and arguably other techniques were already illegal from a number of avenues, why should Congress have to pass more laws?

I do agree that Congress was complicit in their silence though (they should have initiated all sorts of congressional probes), and an open investigation should be held to expose the whole sordid mess, particularly on the Congressional side given the Executive's issues are really old news now.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

Since the briefings weren't to the full Congress and the Democrats weren't in a position to propose or pass legislation anyways, how were they supposed to stop this when it started? The Republicans certainly didn't care about the use of torture. As soon as the Democrats took over Congress in 2007 they passed legislation banning the use of waterboarding and Bush vetoed it. When Obama was sworn in he banned the use unilaterally.

There were reports to the full committee on several occasions. There were enough people ont hat committee that they culd have sponsored legislation. It only takes one Congressman or Senator to do so.

[Harlowe]

They certainly weren't helpless, they could have done something. Personally I think they were afraid of the whole "if you aren't with us you are with the terrorists" mentality that was going on at that time.

[Lurker]

Reports to the full committees didn't happen until 2006.

In any case, Congress did move to limit the use of torture in 2006 with the Detainee Treatment Act. Unfortunately the language in the DTA wasn't strong enough after McCain and some Dems caved to the Bush Administration, and Bush issued a signing statement saying he had the right to ignore the Act anyways. The attempt to pass stronger legislation after the Democrats took control was vetoed.

And yeah, Democrats support terrorists was a campaign issue in 2006 as a result of the debate over torture.

[Trollbait]

I am not in the habit of defending Pelosi but she was NOT in a position to propose legislation about it, talk to other congresspeople about it, turn it over to courts, or anything even close to that.

There are certain types of briefings that are prohibitive in that regard. It is my understanding that this is one of those circumstances.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I am not in the habit of defending Pelosi but she was NOT in a position to propose legislation about it, talk to other congresspeople about it, turn it over to courts, or anything even close to that.

There are certain types of briefings that are prohibitive in that regard. It is my understanding that this is one of those circumstances.

She couldn't discuss her briefings with anyone not at the breifing, but that would not preclude her from introducing legislation.

[Embar Angylwrath]

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

Pelosi "clarifying" previous statements.

Bad move on her part, plus it may put her and Harmon on opposite sides of the fence on this. And a good point was made... if she was so outraged, why didn't she sign on to the letter? Or write another letter herself? I'll tell you why... she was ok with the techniques, and thought that if there was ever any blowback, she could just dump it the Bush adminstrations lap. If Harmon could write a protest letter, so could Pelosi. If Harmon could try to exert some pressure, Pelosi could have exerted more.

So Pelosi either silently condoned the practices, or thought that protesting them (which is what she's doing now) wasn't politically expedient for her, and hell, what's a few muslim torture victims in the grand scheme of things anyway.

To me, this makes her worse then the Bush admin, because at least the Bush admin thought what they were doing was right and justified. If we are to beleive Pelosi now, she never thought the tactics were justified, yet she went along with them anyway.

The person who will allow torture to happen because it fits with their personal political agenda is much worse than someone who tortures because they beleive its the correct thing to do.

[Lurker]

Pelosi "clarifying" previous statements.

I don't see where she changed previous statements or "clarified" them in any way. What am I missing?

To me, this makes her worse then the Bush admin, because at least the Bush admin thought what they were doing was right and justified. If we are to beleive Pelosi now, she never thought the tactics were justified, yet she went along with them anyway.

You have to be joking. Is it at all possible that Pelosi wasn't given a full picture of what the Bush Administration was doing during the briefing she received? Should she have done more to fulfil her oversight role and stop criminal activity? Absolutely. But to say that Pelosi is worse than the people that planned and implemented the torture policies is beyond absurd. Of course, you think we only tortured three people... so maybe it's not so absurd to you.

Your cartoonish framing of the issue where Pelosi is driven by political motives and Bush is driven by a noble desire to do good is also absurd. As if the Republicans didn't use phony patriotism issues like this in every election since 9/11.

[Harlowe]

To me, this makes her worse then the Bush admin, because at least the Bush admin thought what they were doing was right and justified. If we are to beleive Pelosi now, she never thought the tactics were justified, yet she went along with them anyway.

Worse then? That's ridiculous, besides the fact that I seriously doubt they didn't know what they were doing was wrong.

So yeah, I have to agree with this...

But to say that Pelosi is worse than the people that planned and implemented the torture policies is beyond absurd.