I dont know about you, But I'm standing with Nancy

I know she and Harry are favorites of DU to verbally abuse (though I think Harry always deserves it), but I'm standing with Pelosi on this one. WHen you have the CIA and the Repukes on one side, and Pelosi on the other, I'm standing with the Speaker. Lets just say I wouldnt exactly be surprised if the CIA lied about something.

because the CIA is untrustworthy, or both?

I think the CIA is very untrustworthy.

And as a Democrat, I'll stand by her until proven wrong.

A herpes infested cancerous cockroach?

They said 4 briefings. He proved that 3 of the claimed briefings didn't happen. (I can't remember his name just now, Congressman Graham... I think). Also, Panetta does acknowledge that the CIA notes are largely transcriptions of the personal recollections of CIA officials. Which explains how they got 3 of 4 briefings wrong with Graham, but it also reduces the credibility of any claims by the CIA of the details of what, exactly, they might've said to Pelosi in that one briefing.

All in all, there's not nearly enough to convince me that she's the one who's lying.

Its not that Pelosi is a saint or infallible.
But we know how much the CIA was under the thumbs of the executive in the march to war. So they are less believable than usual.

Special Prosecutor...NOW. Fry them all, Dem or Rep.If they OKed it...GUILTY if they stood quietly by...GUILTY. No quarter for war criminals. (YES, I also want the "agents in the field" prosecuted as well. Any mitigating factors can be discussed in the sentencing phase.)

Who told you that it was?

the Nancy/CIA flap? I haven't been paying attention.

after they employed them. So its now Pelosi's fault that we tortured.

Never? then she is as guilty as the bushies. As is any member of congress who stood by silently. All should be prosecuted, as well as "the agents on the ground". SPECIAL PROSECUTOR NOW !!!!

Show me when and how she objected to the techniques. Regardless of when she was informed, I have seen no evidence, nor heard any statements that she voiced any objection at all. It matters not if she was "mislead" She admits to being made aware of at least the intent to use water boarding, and by her silence condoned said actions.In my book that makes her a war criminal.

She's already said the only time they mentioned waterboarding, it was to say they were not doing it.

So what techniques are you expecting her to have objected to?

haven't you ever gone to a briefing on something you were unfamiliar with and been told inside and outside counsel reviewed and approved the process?

What do you object to?

You need details, you need time to research, and you need to have sufficient doubt about the integrity of those performing the prior review to make you question their judgment to begin with.

That is enough to make her or anyone else so informed guilty of war crimes, if they stood silently by.Quit defending everyone with a "D" after thier name.

not a war buff or torture buff or sadist so didn't know anything about it.

I wouldn't have had any clue what it was. And forgive me for my illusions but I wouldn't have begun to imagine that the US would use torture in this day and age.

BTW, do they always use the 'waterboarding' terminology or do they sometimes call it something else in this body of literature where all of this is documented?

It is not even good agit-prop.

Simple knowledge does not entail criminal liability for acts one has not personally performed. A person must either order the acts, or fail to order they be stopped. A person must possess the authority to give such an order in order to commit the second sort of crime, No member of Congress in our system has such authority over any member of the Executive, from the highest to the lowest. Without authority, there can be no responsibility, and no criminal liability.

redqueen~

Light > Heat

:hi:

There is no legal ground whatever on which to base a prosecution of any member of Congress in this matter. People need to get that through their heads, and leave go of the odd emotional gratification enjoyed with making that noise.

start thinking with their "heads".

ANY member of congress who was so informed and did nothing is also guilty. And yes, sir, there is legal ground for prosecuting any governmental officials who actively or tacitly allowed war crimes to be perpetrated. This is why we NEED a special prosecutor to follow any and all directions, Dems, Reps, civil servants, cia agents on the ground.

To bear criminal liability for acts they did not perform themselves, people need to do one of two things. They need to have either ordered the performance of criminal acts, or failed to order criminal acts be stopped. In order to come under the second condition, a person has to have the authority to give an order that must be obeyed. No member of Congress in our system has such authority over any member of the Executive, from the highest to the lowest. Without authority, there can be no responsibility, and no criminal liability.

its nice to look at the law from time to time

I thought that a Nazi director of propaganda was prosecuted for war crimes as well.
He wouldn't have met either of these conditions, do you know how he would have been liable?

Goebbels committed suicide: he was never arrested and tried.

The Nurenburg tribunals worked under an earlier form of international law, and were somewhat improvised, to put it mildly, in the legal theories employed. Things are a good deal more codified now, and there are precedents and case law in existence that were absent then.

The Nazi Party itself was regarded as a criminal organization at the end of the war, and any member of it, particularly members in positions of party authority, considered to have made some contribution to the sum of its crimes through their exercise of their party authority.

If a person whose sole employment was as a propagandist, the grounds would probably have been one of incitement to to crime, by calling for murder and fostering a climate of murder. It would be a shaky ground, but in the circumstance, conviction would not bother me, coming under the 'rough justice' heading....

Streicher's incitement to murder and extermination at the time when Jews in the East were being killed under the most horrible conditions clearly constitutes persecution on political and racial grounds in connection with war crimes, as defined by the Charter, and constitutes a crime against humanity."

in history which I had never previously exhibited.
Nuremberg
Vietnam
CIA operations in the middle east
The first war in Iraq
Iran contra
WWII

While it is true enough that 'what we learn from history is that we do not learn from history', it also true that persons who do not know what occurred before their lives began remain in a profound sense children all their lives, and are much more easily led by the nose than they ought to be....

easily led by the nose.
Science and math are not the territory of blind believers.

I'd put me on the skeptic side of the spectrum,not withstanding my objection to immediately vilifying Pelosi.
My sense is that there is no such thing as a politician with the integrity to give the unvarnished truth.
And while I think there may be true professionals in government who might give the unvarnished truth.
True professionals are rare and people who know what they know versus what they think they know are rarer still.
The ability to transcend one's point of view is an uncommon trait.

A pleasure to make your acquaintance here!

and I'm not offended but perhaps a little defensive about my former deficiencies.
Its was not a lack of intellect or inquisitiveness, but rather a different direction to my interests.

If I may ask, are you in RL a magistrate?

MANY German officials who did NOTHING OVERT were convicted and sentenced for their INACTION. And besides that you are splitting hairs as to culpability of our officials.I doubt you would give republicans that much slack. These actions by OUR government must be prosecuted where ever it leads. It will undoubtedly, take down a number of Democrats. That's too bad, but very necessary.I suggest to you that you bone up on recent war crime history, Sir.

I don't believe there's any precedent whatsoever for prosecuting a member of Congress as a result of their being briefed on anything. She neither authorized torture nor was in a position to order torture stopped.

The CIA back then was under Tenet and he was Bushco's puppet...

The CIA mislead exactly like Bush did.

I'm standing with Pelosi and I hope somehow all these liars are exposed.

anything about Bush's crimes?

Are you saying that you don't believe the CIA mislead Congress?

CIA? Who was the head at that time? Didn't he have to resign?

if the CIA "mislead" any one. Even Nancy admits she was informed of at least, the intent to use water boarding, and stood silently by. Whether or not her objections would have been headed or not is irrelevant. Her silence, and the silence of ANY congressional leader who was informed is tacit approval of war crimes. ALL should be prosecuted.

YOU'RE COO COO.

To bear criminal liability for acts they did not perform themselves, people need to do one of two things. They need to have either ordered the performance of criminal acts, or failed to order criminal acts be stopped. In order to come under the second condition, a person has to have the authority to give an order that must be obeyed. No member of Congress in our system has such authority over any member of the Executive, from the highest to the lowest. Without authority, there can be no responsibility, and no criminal liability.

Its seems to me they have created more problems then prevented them.
I am with Nancy.

Not worth all the money we pay them and all trauma they create, but it could be described as one good thing.

crap we have to clean up later on. And how dare we criticize them! Oh noes, the world is going to end because a crappy govt. agency was criticized. Sorry, I watched Faux news a few minutes ago and it was hilarious.

I get nauseous too easily, I very much thank those of you willing to watch and report back on it.
:puke: and re :puke:

I am likely becoming immune to the stomach churning and gagging reflex that used to occur in the early days of watching it. Now I just like to throw things at the tv. At least its only the stuffed animals of 3 year old daughter.

Other than that, not much.

It's hard to say who is lying at this time.

the CIA by nature often tells lies. So do politicians. I'll hold my opinion until I have some unrefutable facts.

Unfortunately, that may never happen.

The CIA has a long record of dishonesty for one thing. For another - even if she had been "briefed" - there was really nothing she could have done at that time, 2002-2003, to bring down Cheney and put a stop to it all.

The irony is - however - had she put "impeachment on the table" upon the Dems gaining the majority in 2007 - she would not be going through this right now. They would have slung the same mud at her during the impeachment process but Cheney would have been removed from office, indicted, prosecuted and convicted and be in prison now.

And - we would still have Obama in the White House. I always disagreed vehemently with her that Congress could not do it's duty in regard to removing criminals from office at the same time Democrats were campaigning for office.

Bad political move in my opinion.

I can hear FoxNews in the background (not my choice, but my Repub mom's) and they are SO GLEEFUL to be attacking Nancy. I'm for her too. To conservatives, she is the EVIL LIBERAL. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

either she's a liar or she's senile. I hope she's telling the truth... but I won't support letting the party suffer over her.

The more I think about it, the more I'm still pissed about her saying impeachment was off the table. She could have shined a light on things a long time ago and chose not to. So.. I just don't know anymore about her..

The GOP are masters at this sort of thing. If you remember, the lies that Wilson uncovered about yellowcake uranium took a back seat to the outing of his wife. They will stop at nothing to create collusion, so that the public completely forgets about the real issue of TORTURE, but now the story becomes what Nancy knew, and when she knew it. We aren't hearing a thing today about the journalist who uncovered a direct link from Cheney's office to field operatives to torture KSM.

Great job MSM, and my disappointment has only been heightened by the voices on the "left" calling for Nancy's head. I, too, stand with Speaker Pelosi.

It's time for the CIA to put up or shut up.

Until now, it's only been a war of words.

Now let's see some DOCUMENTATION.

There was just one.

but it's hard to figure out how we got to this predicament where the issue regarding torture is.....Nancy Pelosi. Holy shit. Who are Obama's stage managers here. They should be fired.

saying Nancy Pelosi is responsible for torture. Holy shit. Who is supervising that fkn outfit. Isn't it Obama. Obama you better get off your ass and start acting like a real leader.

Can't control his own agency. Get rid of him. Plus he has bad judgment -- coddles the torturers while impaling Nancy Pelosi. What a fucktard, get rid of him. Can't distinguish between the perpetrators and the bystanders.

Establish a Truth Commmission and let the chips fall where they may. I have a feeling Pelosi may not come out smelling like a rose but I'm 100% positive a lot of Republicans will come out of this with shit on their faces.

Nancy Pelosi wants a truth commission, republicans resort to thinly veiled threats to democrats so that no investigation ever be conducted.

Nancy Pelosi has not spent the last 8 years abusing human rights. The CIA is full of Dick Cheney sympathizers who, even though they were following orders in good faith to torture, have felt no qualms in keeping people in secret prisons in Bulgaria, in Uzbekistan, and torturing them knowing fully well that these detainees will never get a day in court.

The short answer is NO.

Nancy is merely a "Good German" who followed the path of least resistance to further her political career. She doesn't deserve to be attacked as a War Criminal, but I have little inclination to "Stand with her". Maybe if she had ever "stood for me" I would feel differently.

In 2006, Nancy Pelosi parlayed her Congressional seat into a seat at the rich man's table.
She has never looked back.


NOW we have Your Children’s Money too !!!
And there is not a fucking thing you can do about it!
Now THIS is “Post-Partisanship” !
Better get used to it!!
Hahahahahahahahaha!

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/

May 15, 2009
Gibbs dodges Pelosi question

The White House wants nothing to do with this Nancy Pelosi fight with the CIA.

Not long after CIA Director Leon Panetta put out a statement sticking by his agency, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs dodged a question about whether Pelosi was right in questioning the CIA.

"I think you've heard the president say this a number of times: the best thing we can do is to look forward," Gibbs said. "I appreciate the invitation to get involved in here, but I'm not gonna RSVP,"

notes certainly indicate that. The CIA lied about briefing him and says it doesn't have written confirmation of what it disclosed. What kind of government agency is that? A secretive one! This raging about Pelosi is designed to cover important news like Soufan's allegations to Congress. And if Nancy is culpable, what does that say about Obama, who has mountains now of credible data to proceed with a Special Prosecutor and does not. I stand with Nancy. She made a big mistake by not starting impeachment hearings; I deplored that action, but she thought it would hurt the dem's election chances. No one will ever know if that is true, but it should not have been relevant. However, one thing is true: we, the dems, did win Congress and the Presidency. Now it is up to both branches to do what is right. Nancy is no longer the one who leads this chaase.

:kick: