Based on the definition of accomplice in my edition of Black's Law Dictionary

do you really think that Nancy Pelosi was an accomplice? I don't.

Here are some legal definition of "accomplice."

One who knowingly, voluntarily and with common intent unites with the principal offender in the commission of a crime. {case citation omitted]
One who is in some way concerned or associated in commission of crime; partaker of guilt; one who aids or assists, or is an accessory. {case citation omitted] Equally concerned in the commission of crime. {case citation omitted] One who is guilty of complicity in crime charged, either by being present and aiding or abetting in it, or having advised and encouraged it, though absent from place when it was committed, though mere presence, acquiescence, or silence, in the absence of a duty to act, is not enough, no matter how reprehensible it may be, to constitute one an accomplice. One is liable as an accomplice to the crime of another if he gave assistance or encouragement or failed to perform a legal duty to prevent it with the intent thereby to promote or facilitate commission of the crime.

Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.)pg. 17

Complicity: A state of being an accomplice; participation in guilt. {case citation omitted] Involvement in crime as principal or as accessory before the fact. May also refer to activities of conspirators.


Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.) pg. 285

This portion of the definition strikes me as most important.

Nancy Pelosi's "mere presence, acquiescence, or silence, in the absence of a duty to act" would not be "enough, no matter how reprehensible" would not make her an accomplice.


IMO, so far, there is no evidence that Nancy Pelosi was "knowingly, voluntarily and with common intent" united in the commission of the crime of torture by the Bush administration. Her approval or disapproval of their torture was essentially irrelevant, especially since they had already tortured at least once, apparently, before they told her anything about it. (She was briefed only once before being replaced as the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee.)

Further, Nancy Pelosi did not assist in the commission of the torture. She was not involved in giving any of the orders. She claims that she was merely informed that torture had been approved and did not even know until later that it had actually been performed. Whether she is misrepresenting what she was told can only be decided by a court. We really don't have any evidence that she was told anything different from what she has said she was told. The CIA's memos and notes are hearsay. You would have to cross-examine the CIA's witnesses on this.

Nancy Pelosi was not, by any stretch of the imagination, "equally concerned" in the commission of the torture.

Nancy Pelosi was not "present" and did not aid or abet the commission of the torture. There is no evidence that she advised or encouraged it, "though absent from place when it was committed." We have no evidence that Nancy Pelosi assisted or encouraged the torture. Nor did she fail "to perform a legal duty to prevent it with the intent thereby to promote or facilitate commission of the crime." She had a legal duty to be silent about everything she was told in the hearing.

Bob Graham pretty much supports Pelosi's statements.

I think we need prosecutions to sort this out. A Truth Commission would never clear the names of the innocent people in this. It would just look like a cover-up. If Pelosi is telling the truth and willing to stand on it she should take the lead in requesting prosecutions of those who are responsible.

Just to be thorough: 2004 comment on a definition of accessory after the fact from a Model Penal Code

Accessory after the fact
MPC §242.3 : 5 conditions
i. Harbors or conceals the other, or
ii. Provides or aids in providing a weapon, transportation, disguise or other means of avoiding apprehension or effecting escape, or
iii. Conceals or destroys evidence
iv. Warns the other of impeding discovery
v. Volunteers false info to a law enforcement officer (new by MPC)

law.usc.edu/students/orgs/jlsa/assets/docs/CRIMcode%20-%20spring%202004.doc

Confession: I posted this in response to a video on this by Cenk, but I don't think very many people saw it. I'm interested in what you think after reading these definitions.

(even if she knew, that is, which is highly doubtful), all she'd have done is get herself defeated in 2004. Remember, it was the absolute height of jingoistic fever and hitting 'em back, even if it was hitting the wrong people and violated law and international treaty.

There was quite literally nothing she could have done.

Now, announcing impeachment was off the table was just plain stupid.

This is different. This is just more manufactured poutrage from the far right.

been committing a crime. The Repugs forget to mention that tidbit...

That law against releasing intel only protects lawful practices, those practices that are to be carried out or can be carried out under the law. If the practices involve unlawful activity then the congress person who is advised of same has a duty to take steps to try to stop the unlawful activity.

You provide your citation first.

:spray:

I'll show you mine if you show me yours first. :eyes:

in your "law" words to the effect that "in no case shall information be classified in order to conceal violations of law".

Will you play the pathetic game others have played in this thread? Will you insist a law exists but be unable to provide me a copy of said law and/or a link to the law?

You see, the president cannot enter orders that violates the laws as passed by Congress and/or the constitution. Congress cannot pass a law that violates the constitution and/or that violates the lawfully adopted laws.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I on the other hand, avered nothing.

It is replete with citations.

You don't post in a vacuum, your position is well known, was well known when I originally responded to you and I have since explained to you that if you have some law that purports to make it a crime to discuss classified briefings then you will find that same law specifically provides that violations of the law cannot be concealed under the guise of "classified information". Of course, you seem to like to get those posts deleted.

Suffice it to say if you took the time to read the thread you would find your answers.

Which means there is none.

Thank you for demonstrating my correctness and the emptiness of your words.

If you had taken the time to read the thread before you asked for the cite, you would have seen that you didn't need to ask for it. The citation you continue to insist doesn't exist has been in the thread this entire time at post 20. It was posted before you asked for the cite and the important language from the cite has been repeated back to you over and over again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5663253&mesg_id=5667083

Since you have such difficulty reading the posts in this thread, I'll be more than happy to give you the link and the key phrase from the citation.



Now, you go ahead and provide me with the cite to any law or execute order that exists which makes it a crime to release classified information that was made classified to conceal a crime, such as the torture policies of the bush administration and the torture techniques employed by the CIA, as allegedly shared with congress.

Thank you for demonstrating that this has not been about the citation but about some weak little gotcha game. Reading is, after all, fundamental, especially on an internet message board.

You gave up the cite!

Good for you.

actually cared about the cite and the issues discussed. It was posted before you asked for it - damn shame you don't know how to read and you don't care about the truth.

...... fun of our little game. Ad you play with such gusto.

It was good for me. Was it good for you?

you offered none.

.... but you whined so I had to keep restarting.

You presented no challenge whatsoever, you didn't even have the courage to step on the playing field. You stood on the sidelines screaming, "I wanna play." When invited, you never joined in you just screamed "I wanna play."

And you still haven't stepped onto the playing field yet you claim some victory or satisfaction.

I don't see anything that convinces me that Pelosi isn't telling the truth... but your post does well illuminate that, even if she had been advised, she still wouldn't qualify as an accomplice.
Thanks.

Although, it's probably futile. Can't have facts encroaching on our agenda.

What laws make it illegal to torture.

Please help people understand what the "law actually is".

Is the Federal War Crimes Act, which makes violations of several treaties the United States is party to violations of U.S. law. The act is of long standing, as are the treaty obligations, the one most recently undertaken dating to the Reagan administration. That was the signing and ratification of the U.N. Convention on Torture; the other is the body of Treaty and Codicils known as the Geneva Accords.

The War Crimes Act is in some sense a mere formality, since signed treaties become, according to the Constitution, law of the land, on a par with the articles and amendments of the Constitution itself.

What the Bush administration did was declare it was not bound either by Federal law or the Constitution in regard to the torture of prisoners in custody. For this monsterously un-American declaration, it conjured up several wholly fallacious grounds it purported to regard as sound legal doctrine. Probably the most dangerous and dictatorial of these was the claim that Presidential authority as commander in chief was not subject to any law of the United States, and that a Presidental exercise of military authority in time of war was exempt from any law passed by Congress or decision of any federal court. Even if one accepted this utter perversion of our Constitutional system, it can be controverted as exercised simply by asking for production of the declaration of war establishing the existence of a state of war. 'State of war' has a definite legal meaning, that cannot exist without a declaration of war.

Subsidiary fallacious grounds on which to declare torture of prisoners by the U.s. government legal, despite clear laws and treaty obligations forbidding it, were claims that the Geneva Accords did not apply to 'terrorists', and that the torture engaged in by the Bush administration did not really meet the legal definition of torture in the relevant statutes and treaties. Neither of these claims are worth the paper they were written on, and this has been in fact determined by a proceeding within the Justice Department itself.

Most significantly you missed the 8th Amendment to the Constitution:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

That is a pretty absolute statement.

SCOTUS has previously held that "persons" entitled to the protections of the constitution are those in the custody of the US, even if they are not US citizens. We cannot abuse a tourist accused of violating the laws just because the tourist is not a US citizen, now can we.

And of course, we know that in Hamdi and Rasul v Bush SCOTUS held that alien detainess at Guatanamo had legal rights to challenge their detention in American courts, in part because the United States had exclusive jurisdiction and control over the base in Cuba.

We know that it is the duty of Congress to pass or enact laws. The president is not authorized to pass legislation or the laws of the nation. Again, let's see what the Constitution has to say.

Article 1.
Section 1
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the
United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives

So how is it you believe that the executive branch can pass a law that says "congress, if we tell you anyone that we plan to break the law, it is you that is the criminal"?

Then there is Section VI of the Constitution
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

The Treaties we entered, like the Geneva Conventions we helped author, are the law of the land. The Geneva Convention and the Conventions against Torture are binding until such time as the president withdraws from same. I don't believe bush did that, do you?



And of course, there is 18 USC sec 2340/2340A.

I could go on and on about other potential criminal charges, conspiracies, racketeering, violations of civil rights under the color of the law.

You get the drift, don't you. The arguments you use to defend members of congress who might have been aware of the torture are the arguments that the bushco admin rely upon and used to their advantage, they are the reason why we are in the mess we are in.

No good will be achieved by engaging, but the temptation is hard to resist.

The Constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment refers to sentence on conviction. It has evolved over the years. When written, branding an offender, for instance, was not considered a violation of it, and in fact remained on the books as a punishment for military personnel well past the Civil War. The last person flogged by sentence of a court in the United States was whipped in the late fifties of the last century, if recollection serves.

Your pretense no Federal statute criminalizes unauthorized disclosure of classified information is simply foolishness.

Where you get the idea my comments defend either the practice of torture or a policy of not vindicating the law on the matter quite escapes me. The persons who conceived, planned, and executed the Bush administration's policy of torturing prisoners in custody should be prosecuted. The fact is that, under the law, all persons bearing criminal liability for these acts are people who were part of the Executive branch during the last administration. Attempts to rope various members of Congress into the thing are without legal foundation.

If you are a lawyer, I would have to guess you have never defended a criminal and/or you have never fought to protect the civil rights of others. You don't understand the basics.

Why is it that you cannot chain an accused defendant to the walls of his cell? Because doing so would be cruel punishment. Can you punish someone that had not been found guilty of a crime? There's a little concept of "due process" that comes into play and your confusing the two, pretrial detentions and punishment, only proves that you are just a bunch of words with no substance.

Your defense of a member of congress that may well have been informed of the torture of detainees, that was made aware that laws were broken, is a defense of torture.

No one is above the law, even if you think there is a law that states they are.

Congress cannot pass a law that violates the constitution, congress cannot pass a law that authorizes they violate other laws. The president cannot pass a law and/or cannot enter an order that authorizes the laws of the US and/or the constitution be violated.

Simple concepts that cannot be masked with words and weak efforts at insults such as what you type.

You certainly do not want to get into either methods used in 'crowd control' or 'maintaining order' in prisons; it is too distressing. My view that much of it does violate the Constitution is not that of most courts which have examined suits brought over these things.

You are stating that simple knowledge of a crime suffices to make a person either a conspirator or accomplice in that crime: it does not.

Congress routinely passes laws that the Judiciary later determines violate the Constitution, and strikes down.

they are not allowed to be chained to the point of pain or discomfort and/or for purpose of punishment. (especially pre-trial detainees who have not been afforded their due process rights and found guilty, thus subject to punishment). You certainly don't want me to find you actual cases which have ruled such abuses are violations of the law, now do you?

I provided you the federal jury instruction regarding what it entails to be a conspirator. Once the person becomes aware of the crime and does nothing to stop it, when they have the only avenue available to stop it, when they do not withdraw from the conspiracy, then they are as guilty as any of the co-conspirators the commit the crimes and/or that order the crimes.

didn't know. at this point we know reports from the CIA have been wrong, loaded with political motivations from the Bush administration. this far no memo released or leaked from inside CIA contradicts Speaker Pelosi.

One associated with another in a crime, having guilty knowledge and complicity, as an attorney who defends a criminal, knowing him guilty. This view of the attorney's position in the matter has not hitherto commanded the assent of attorneys, no one having offered them a fee for assenting.

Source:
The Devil's Dictionary
by Ambrose Bierce

truthful to the Court. In addition, an attorney may not encourage or assist in the commission of a crime. A number of Mafia attorneys who helped their clients commit crimes ultimately ended up in jail. There are dishonest people in all professions - even the ministry.

accomplices and/or accessories, including Rocky (smart move, that letter, huh?), Feinstein, and probably Harman, but I've never gotten the impression that Pelosi is one of them. Self-serving and naive, yes, willfully blind, yes, but probably not guilty of any legally actionable offense, including suborning torture.

18 USC § 2340A. Torture

(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or (2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.

(c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340---A000-.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5660387&mesg_id=5660387

"mere presence, acquiescence, or silence, in the absence of a duty to act"



That silly ole constitution of ours, it actually has a section that is against torture or cruel and unusual punishment.

I've heard this argument over the past couple days and am curious what she could have done? Gotten on the House floor and disclosed state secrets? Go to the corporate media and get them to act (despite their bloodlust for war?). Or lead some revolution? Honestly...what recourse did she have in 2002?

Yes, the Constitution speaks against torture for those who perpetrate it. I've seen no evidence that Pelosi approved of any torture or participated in it. In fact, based on the information, she voted AGAINST the Iraq fiasco unlike many other Democrats. Now if you were in this sitatuion, you have a choice...support your country (right or wrong) and try to use the system to make change or try from the outside and get totally ignored and steamrolled? Ya think you could have done different, I'd be curious to hear what it was. As always hindsight is 20/20.

She has far greater power NOW to do something...to push for hearings and an independent investigation, and even now she doesn't have the power to move that forward...she needs 219 other Democrats in the House to go along with it. Let's put it all in the open...find out not just what Pelosi knew, but everyone who was in Congress at the time. What did the rushpublicans, who were in charge of the House at the time do to either stonewall or outright lie about what they knew. Time to put the light back where it really belongs, not falling for the right wing spin...

public.

You are the one that is spinning things.

I personally believe Pelosi. I believe the CIA is lying to cover their asses.

To hold hearings? Where? In the same Senate broomcloset we had the Downing Street Memo hearings. And we saw how far those revelations went. Filed a suit? And disclose state secrets in an open court? Do you honestly think any judge (especially one in the tank to the rushpublicans) would let that move forward? Not to mention the field day the corporate media would have had skewing her as being a traitor (especially if she disclosed secrets). Too bad we don't live in a vaccuum.

Now how am I spinning? Nothing to spin at all...very cut and dried if you look at the facts and timeline. She was prohibited from talking to others in her party about what she knew. Listen to former Senator Graham...or is he spinning, too?

Now many here castigate the CIA for cooking the books since their inception...and we're to believe them now? Pannetta has to stand by his people, but he has no clue what was going on prior to the day he walked in the door. Meanwhile the right wing has found a distraction and many are gladly biting for it...against hindsight is 20/20.

The only way to find this out is an independent investigation. Now if Speaker Pelosi fights such an idea, then here's real reason for concern. We're just starting to learn about the real corruption and crimes of the past 8 years...documented evidence vs. hearsay and leaks.

Cheers...

You don't get it - "state secrets" cannot be used to cover up a crime.

Your defense of her, your justifying the silence, is what allowed these crimes to continue. It is what the criminals counted on.

Disclosing state secrets is as much a crime as covering up torture. Pick your poison. We are both in agreement that the real criminals here counted on her silence to go full speed ahead with torture and other violations of civil rights, international law and the Constitution. It was a Catch-22 at the time and one that is now being turned on her and Democrats to divert attention away from the real criminals here.

I'm not justifying the silence as much as asking what recourse did she have? Or others who were informed? I think it's far more important to hold the real torturers accountable, not play politics, which is what this has turned into.

The "state's secret" executive order you refer to specifically states:



And when SCOTUS tosses out laws as unconstitutional, laws they find violate the constitution, that means the laws are no good. Congress cannot pass laws that violate the constitution, the executive orders cannot violate the constitution or existings laws.

And here is the kicker, it was The Patriot Act that bushco crammed down our throats that amended the torture law to make "conspiracy to torture" a crime.

She had recourse, she could have convened closed session hearings, she could have filed a suit to be heard in camera asking the court for directions. She could have done something if she in fact knew that they were torturing.

Now who determines what is worth protecting or not? Methinks it would fall on the booooosh DOJ and the OLC.

Now who could she have convened closed door hearings with? Boooosh? The CIA? Again...she was sworn to secrecy even in speaking with members of her own caucus. Now if you want to try a Surpreme Court case on this, go right ahead...at the time and place, she nor any of the others who were briefed (who also didn't come forward) were able to do anything but witness. And I'm of the belief that she didn't have the full story. We saw in the Plame case how intel was cooked to fit the justifications of the master, do you believe the CIA gave her the full story?

Also, do you honestly thing a suit filed that involved what were top state secrets would be allowed to proceede...especially in a "time of war" with a judiciary cramed full of Raygoniate and boooosh toadies? Ya think the same crew that gave boooosh the election in 2000 would make a 180 turn in 2002?

Again...where were the others speaking out? Even more important is what did rushpublicans know...they were in control of the House at the time. Were they briefed differently than the Democrats? Or were they lied to as well. More questions that beg for a throughough, independent investigation. If such an investigation points to Pelosi as an actual accomplice in either designing or approving of torture, she is as much a war criminal as the others. But I want real evidence, not conjecture and spin.

"Sec. 1.6 Limitations on Classification.

(a) In no case shall information be classified in order to conceal
violations of law,"

The constitution is clear.

Torture is against the laws of the USofA, against our constitution. It is that simple.

The information is not "classified information" subject to secrecy if it is about violations of the law.

"The others" are as culpable as Pelosi if, as the CIA alleges, she knew they were torturing and remained silent.

So in your opinion Pelosi is as guilty as John Yoo or dick cheney?

You're taking the word of the CIA and the boooshies that she was a part of their plans for a war for profit?

Remember, Peolosi and others were told what was being done was "within the law". She wasn't a party to the Yoo memos that were used as the basis...she and others didn't see those memos until the rest of us did. All she could do was believe, as she said, that the tactics taken were legal.

Again, a full investigation can bring more of this to light. Right now it's a he said/she said game and this is exactly what the right wing spinners hope happens. Spread the mud on anyone and everyone and let the real criminals slip away. Time to put the focuse on the real criminals...afterwards we can deal with who know what and when.

constitution. I've never said I believe the CIA over Pelosi. The truth is, I don't - I believe Pelosi.

You continue to shift the discussion. The issue is not about whether or not Pelosi or any member of congress is an accomplish, as alleged by the OP. It is about what obligation did congress and/or any member of the administration, military, FBI, CIA have relative to the laws of this nation. You continue to claim that there was nothing Pelosi could do, if in fact the CIA told her they were torturing folks. I disagree. She could have filed suit, sought an injunction to stop the torture, she could have held hearings, she could have gone to the press.

To say that the bushies would have destroyed her is not justification for her silence, if she did know. She had a duty and "they made me promise not to tell, I was scared they would hurt me" is not a defense to silence about a crime.

Tell me, can the CIA commit any crime they like under the cloak of "state's secrets" and national security? Where do you draw the line? Assasinations? Torture? Bombings of villages? Invasions of sovereign nations?

That's where I see you headed at here and I am in full agreement that Congress fell asleep at the switch many time in standing up to the criminality and abuses of the executive. They chose not to fight on the floor but at the ballot box. And I think we both agree that there is an important need to thoroughly investigate the advise and consent process over the past 8 years...and to push Congress to reassert many of the powers they handed to this regime thanks to the Patriot act and other games. However, at this point, we're still uncovering facts and I expect more damning revelations to come.

Many here assume she had as much power in 2002 as she does now. Congresswoman Pelosi wasn't even in the party leadership...Gephart was Majority Leader, David Bonier was second in charge. A good example of what would happen had she spoken out as you say is Cynthia McKinney. While I'm not a fan of her more radical stances, Ms. McKinney did speak out and should be applauded for it, but look how she not only was railroaded by the booosh regime, but demonized in the corporate media and then turned on by the Democratic party. While I agree that Pelosi and others should have spoken out, you could see how counterproductive that could have been rather than trying to "fix" it from the inside.

You ask if the CIA can committe any crime? It appears to be the case, and I suspect we only know a fraction of what went on...no reports of what happened at the black sites...torture that may not have been done by Americans but surely with the encouragement and consent of the CIA and the OVP. No question, it's time to reconvene the Church Commission and tear the scab off the agency.

Bottom line is that all the torture information needs to come forward and a full accounting must happen, not just for the Constitution (which is very important), but also to regain diplomatic credibility to help end the military adventurism that fostered this whole mess.

Cheers...and thank you for the discussion...

:toast:

Pelosi (other than the fact that she doesn't require defending any more than any other member of congress).

While I agree that Pelosi and others should have spoken out, you could see how counterproductive that could have been rather than trying to "fix" it from the inside.

Counter productive? WTF - I see it as counter productive that they gave in to the "popular fears" and didn't act with courage and conviction. They allowed the illegal war of the bush admin, they allowed the torture by their silence and their fear of "not being cool" or "patriotic" or whatever it was at time.

Counter productive was allowing our nation to invade nations, to easily wage wars without cause.

Look at where it has gotten us.

Words can't express the frustrations I feel on this matter. The overall concept of this nation trying to justify torture in any shape or fashion is off the radar. I've also long believed that our system as it stands isn't capable of truly getting to the truth and it'll require an international tribunal to really expose all the crimes and criminals. Our system is too partisan to look at such a sorrid and shameful matter without playing games. That's where I get frustrated.

Yes, many...too many, went along with the drumbeat to war...John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden...too many Democrats were looking to do the politically expidient thing. To Pelosi's credit, she voted against authorizing the Iraq quagmire and that surely had to be based on her briefings. Many were backed up against an election and were forced to be "with us or with the terrirsts"...why so few bothered to read the Patriot Act (still despicable) or did much to oppose the invasion. Just writing this brings up a lot of inner frustrations. All indications was the "war" was a fraud but those who tried to stand up...and let me throw Max Cleland's name here...paid a big price for even questioning the "conventional wisdom".

Don't confuse my attempting to read the political tea leaves with what I believe. If this were my world and party, impeachment would have been ON the table and I would have been far more aggressive in pushing the subpoeans and put some real teeth in the "strongly worded" letters. Reality sets in way too often as the booosh regime constantly outplayed the Democrats...especially in the first 4 years and we're all paying for the lack of people of integrity in BOTH parties.

and protecting the innocent than to be a coward that allowed crimes to be committed in my name.

I am sure that there were members of the German government under Hitler that felt the same damned way that Pelosi and others felt during that time span. The confusion that existed, nationalism versus patriotism, tripped up many people. Those who took the oath to defend the constitution have a higher burden than others. It was their choice to remain in government under bushco, to remain members of the committees that were fed the lies.

The reason those "committees" exist is part of the checks and balance system of this nation. They had a duty to keep the administration from violating the laws of this nation.

It does not free a person to disclose classified material, if that person believes it to be improperly classified. Penalties for doing so remain in effect, so long as the material is actually declared classified at the time it is disclosed. Further, while a legislator is free to say anything, including speak out loud classified information in debate on the floor of the House or Senate, penalties for making public that classified information remain for any person who reports that speech to the public.

You can try to post your nonsense using the "sirs" and the "ma'ams" in an effort to make people believe you are more knowledgeable than they are, but it doesn't work. What you have just written clearly proves you are not informed and you have wholly failed to research the topic before you took the time to blurt a response.

You accept the "accomplice" defense of the OP while ignoring the actual torture laws. The Patriot Act made the conspiracy to torture a crime in the same manner torture itself is a crime. Anyone who knew of the plans to torture who remained silent joined the conspiracy.

You overlook the actual language of the "law" which relates to "state secrets".

Sec. 1.6 Limitations on Classification.

(a) In no case shall information be classified in order to conceal
violations of law, . . .

http://epic.org/open_gov/eo_12356.html

And you overlook the basic legal truth that congress cannot pass any law which violates the constitution. The executive branch cannot adopt any policy or sign any order that violates the constitution or the lawfully adopted laws passed by congress.

Congress passes laws that violate the Constitution regularly; they are in force until the Supreme Court declares them to be un-Constitutional, though there may in some instances be a restraining injunction staying their enforcement issue from a lower court while the matter is litigated.

People do not have the right to act on their own belief concerning whether a law is or is not Constitutional, or has or has not been applied properly, without facing consequences for violating that law. It is possible that if someone had made public the classified information regarding torture of prisoners, events at trial and in appeal might have established that the material was improperly classified, but it is far from likely, in y view, this would have been the case. Courts might well have ruled that the defendants belief the material was improperly classified was not a defense to the charge of having revealed it, and if the propriety of the classification was accepted for challenge, the defense would have to prove the material was classified in order to conceal a violation of law, and no other purpose lay behind its classification. It is quite possible courts would rule that concealing a violation of law was incidental to a decision to classify the material resting on some other ground: courts traditionally grant the Executive great leeway in the matter of keeping secrets, often to a point which to my view is unjust and wrong-headed.

Merely keeping silent is not sufficient to indict, let alone convict, a person of having joined in conspiracy. If it were, any person who failed to report a crime they knew of to the police would be liable as a co-conspirator, and we could not build enough jails to hold the half of them.

Congress did not pass the "state's secrets" law you cling to. That is an executive order and anyone with a lick of sense will tell you that the president has no authority to enact laws, let alone laws that violate the lawfully passed laws adopted by congress in accordance with the constitution. More importantly, the executive order specifically provides that "In no case shall information be classified in order to conceal violations of law." http://epic.org/open_gov/eo_12356.html

There is this little statute, lawfully adopted by Congress in 1979, amended in 1994 and again in 2001 which criminalizes torture and the defines a "conspiracy to commit torture".

The Classified Information Protection Act, a Federal statute establishing penalties for un-authorized disclosure of up to twenty years imprisonment.

No conduct alleged against Speaker Pelosi comes close to meeting the requirements of conspiracy in the statute or definition you cite.

you rely upon.

As provided in PL 06-456" "CLASSIFIED INFORMATION PROCEDURES ACT"


The Executive Order that provides for the state secrets, the secrecy of the classified intel, specifically states: "In no case shall information be classified in order to conceal violations of law . . ."

The Act you reference actually provides the mechanism that Pelosi should have accessed, if she was in fact told by the CIA that they were torturing detainees. The Act you rely upon provides for the use of "classified information" when a defendant is entitled to that information as part of their defense against an indicted charge.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18a/usc_sup_05_18_10_sq3.html

That is the law regulating use of classified information in a court proceeding, and has no relevance whatever to the public disclosure of classified information absent such a proceeding, nor does it have the slightest relevance to your claim a person can decide on their own material is improperly classified, and on that basis make it public without violating the law.

Provide me the language that allows violations of the law under the umbrella of "state secrets".

Come now, back up your position with more than just "ma'ams" and words with no substance.

And as I said, that section I provided the link to allows for the court to make the call on "classified intel" (as the judge did in the Plame case.)

Pelosi could have utilized the law to protect herself and the laws she took an oath to defend, if she was told by the CIA that they were torturing detainees.

The determination that material has been improperly classified cannot be made legally by an individual who handles or receives it. If the material is classified at the time a person has possession of it, that person violates the Classified Information Protection Act by making it public, and at the moment that act is committed, whether its classification is proper or no is irrelevant. It is perhaps possible that at trial, a defendant might be allowed to argue the propriety of the classification, and that if it was proved to be improperly classified, no crime occurred, but success in this would be difficult. It is true that a member of the Legislature cannot be prosecuted for anything said in debate or deliberation in the house he or she is a member of, but the guiding Supreme Court opinion on the subject expressly leaves liable to prosecution any person who makes public such a disclosure by a member outside the Legislative body itself.

No law, anywhere, contains within it a provision licensing a person to disregard it on that individual's private judgement of whether some element of the law has been properly applied. Only judges are permitted to determine whether a law is properly applied in some instance or other.

You have yet to provide the actual law you claim exists that authorizes that the president of the US and his agencies may violate the constitution and the lawful laws passed by congress, under the guise of "state secrets" and/or "classified information".

It is not asking much. All you need to do is provide the code citation and/or a link to the code and/or quote the actual law in your post.

You continue to refuse to do so, why is that?

Of course, only a court can make the determination about a law being lawful or constitutional. Actually, it is SCOTUS that has the final say when it comes to interpreting the laws.

Had a member of congress been briefed by the CIA that the US was waterboarding and/or abusing detainees, that member of congress had an obligation to his oath and the citizens to take steps to prevent the violations of the law. As I said, they could go to the courts and ask for an injunction, they could tell the courts of their concerns and that telling would not be a violation of the "classified information" act.

And our system does provide that I can disregard the orders of another if I believe those orders violate the law. What advocate would be the reasoning similar to the time of the KKK civil rights violations. Often, it was the sheriff and his deputy that were involved in the killings. Now, if the sheriff tells me it is okay to kill someone, should I be required to follow his directions just because he is the sheriff?

Tell me, can the CIA plan to assasinate a world leader, tell congress in a briefing, and congress is mandated to remain silent and do nothing?

It is true that congress cannot pass laws that violate the constitution and that the president cannot pass laws that violate the statutes of the USofA and/or the constitution. The executive order that defines classified information specifically provides that the classified information cannot pertain to violations of the law.

You continue to miss the obvious and now it has simple become a matter of you reading your own words. You know you are wrong, you just can't stand to admit it.

People who read the exchange will decide for themselves who has the better of it.

Yes, those who read our exchanges will see that I provided you with the actual language of the statutes and the executive orders which prove you are mistaken.

But by all means, keep at it. You will, however be doing it without me henceforth here; other matters will be occupying my time.

"Lawyer, n.: One skilled in circumventing the law."

But being wrong seems to be your purpose in this thread.

I not only understand the words I have posted and the words you have posted, I have understood the words you cannot post.

world.
:puke:

It's impossible for anybody in Washington to stop all the evil they see.

If a person knows that an appropriations bill is being used in part to fund war crimes, they become an accomplice when they vote for that bill.

All the weasel wording and semantics games in the world don't change that reality.

she was in violation of US law. And if she didn't, she was also in violation because the Geneva Torture Convention says very clearly that when the State discovers an incidence of torture, it must immediately open an investigation. She wasn't the head of state or even the Speaker at the time. But she was arguably the leading Democrat in Congress.

I wish, though, that we would stop defending Nancy and start going after the felons that put her in that position. That would be the best defense, imo.

She's a liar, and a horrible one at that. Witness her tapdance Thursday. Talk about two left feet. She's got two: one is size 18EEE and the other is 21FFF.

She shouldn't be prosecuted, nope. She should be voted out. Plain and simple.

Was not an accomplice, regarding the torture issue.

As always a great read.