Democrats Were Briefed On CIA methods

[Bonestorm]

So in your view, did Nancy Pelosi have any moral responsibility to do something with the information she received in 2002?

Or did she do the right thing by tucking the issue away for four years and then hypocritically using it as an attack on the Bush administration?

Absolutely she had a moral obligation to do something about it. That's the basis of my criticism above. But, as I said, it doesn't make the practice legal. It just turns it into a poltiical football. Fuck the politics. Pelosi was wrong. Torture is wrong and illegal and absent a bill authorizing the actions taken by teh Administration they broke the law. If you want to rope in Pelosi, Harman, Reid and Rockefeller by all means do so.

 

[Cancel5]

I'm not a democrat either and NO fan of Pelosi. I have very good reasons to hate her .. but she can't be blamed for the illegal and disasterous macinations of the Bush Administration.

I absolutely agree, you have made a good point. The gents of the PNAC came to the WH with a whole agenda and they did everything they could to implement it.

 

[blackascoal]

Actually yes. She can. Not an even 50-50 split in the blame, but still significant.

Bush began it, but it took the cooperation of top Democrats to keep it going for six years.

Again, I agree that many democrats share in the blame for the disaster of Bush .. especially the centrists/blue dog ones. But Bush didn't just begin the horror, he executed it and got away with it by not only cowering and conning the democrats, but republicans AND the American people as well.

Surely you're not letting the American people off the hook if you're blaming Pelosi.

 

[blackascoal]

I absolutely agree, you have made a good point. The gents of the PNAC came to the WH with a whole agenda and they did everything they could to implement it.

And they cowered the whole country with FEAR.

Any dissention to what they were doing was immediately branded as "unpatriotic."

Politicians who had the courage to speak the truth were driven out of office .. often by AIPAC .. who's ass they all kiss.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The term "Gang of Eight" gained wide currency in the coverage of the Bush administration's warrantless domestic spying program, in the context that no members of Congress other than the Gang of Eight were informed of the program, and they were forbidden to disseminate knowledge of the program to other members of Congress.

If ANY member of Congress was privy to these hearings and meetings where they were informed of illegal practices by the executive, it was their duty to report it and pursue justice by impeachment proceedings. We all know how THAT'S going to go though.

 

[Jarod]

Yes, those 8 Democrats are spinless and wimps for not standing up against this, but given the choice, Id vote for the spinless wimp who did nuthing about it over the criminal who dreamed it up and emplimented it in the first place.

I find it very amusing that the Republicans defense to these crimes is, "Eight Democrats knew about it when we did it"!

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I find it very amusing that the Republicans defense to these crimes is, "Eight Democrats knew about it when we did it"!

I, for one, am not defending any republican from it.

Yes, those 8 Democrats are spinless and wimps for not standing up against this, but given the choice, Id vote for the spinless wimp who did nuthing about it over the criminal who dreamed it up and emplimented it in the first place.

It's called accomplices after the fact, specifically because they knew it was still being done. By not bringing it up, they endorsed it.

They should all go to prison.

 

[Jarod]

Sure I robbed a bank, but I told those guys over there that I was going to do it so I sould not be in any trouble!

 

[Jarod]

I, for one, am not defending any republican from it.


It's called accomplices after the fact, specifically because they knew it was still being done. By not bringing it up, they endorsed it.

They should all go to prison.

Maybe you are not defending the Republicans, but plenty of your ilk are...


And, merely knowing of a plan to commit a crime does not make one an accomplice to that crime!

 

[Epicurus]

Sure I robbed a bank, but I told those guys over there that I was going to do it so I sould not be in any trouble!

Even in your hilariously stupid analogy, the people you told of your plan would be charged as accessories if they did nothing to stop or report you.

Jarod are you really a lawyer?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

And, merely knowing of a plan to commit a crime does not make one an accomplice to that crime!

no, it does not, but it DOES make it a crime to know that it is continuing and you endorse it. Thats what these congress critters did by not demanding a stop to it, an investigation about it, and a prosecution because of it. And I say congress critters to include both parties.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Even in your hilariously stupid analogy, the people you told of your plan would be charged as accessories if they did nothing to stop or report you.

Jarod are you really a lawyer?

actually, with the exception of half a dozen states, he is right. even witnessing a crime in progress and not reporting it does not make one an accomplice.

The difference with the government aspect is that the congress people were there because it was legally necessary for their oversight to ensure nothing illegal was happening. By not following up on that responsibility, they are liable for it.

 

[Bonestorm]

no, it does not, but it DOES make it a crime to know that it is continuing and you endorse it. Thats what these congress critters did by not demanding a stop to it, an investigation about it, and a prosecution because of it. And I say congress critters to include both parties.

I'm not so sure that is the case. They would have had to assist or participate in the commission of the crime. They had no legal obligation to do anything and, in fact, had a legal obligation to keep the information classified (though they likely could not be prosecuted for revealing the information).

 

[blackascoal]

If ANY member of Congress was privy to these hearings and meetings where they were informed of illegal practices by the executive, it was their duty to report it and pursue justice by impeachment proceedings. We all know how THAT'S going to go though.

That makes a fine theory, but that's not how Congress works. I know because I've been there.

How do you bring charges of impeachment when the information is classified?

How many other people in Congress or the Senate do you believe are going to support something they know nothing about?

Speaking truth to power often ends with you getting kicked the fuck out of Congress because the power of the press is on the side of those in power.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I'm not so sure that is the case. They would have had to assist or participate in the commission of the crime. They had no legal obligation to do anything and, in fact, had a legal obligation to keep the information classified (though they likely could not be prosecuted for revealing the information).

was this committee of congresspeople responsible for oversight?

 

[blackascoal]

actually, with the exception of half a dozen states, he is right. even witnessing a crime in progress and not reporting it does not make one an accomplice.

The difference with the government aspect is that the congress people were there because it was legally necessary for their oversight to ensure nothing illegal was happening. By not following up on that responsibility, they are liable for it.

No they aren't and not one single member of the Gang of Eight is in any danger of prosecution.

That is not how Congress works.

Now that Bush is out of office and the classified documnets can be reviewed, are you in favor of prosecuting the Bush Administration?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

That makes a fine theory, but that's not how Congress works. I know because I've been there.

How do you bring charges of impeachment when the information is classified?

How many other people in Congress or the Senate do you believe are going to support something they know nothing about?

Speaking truth to power often ends with you getting kicked the fuck out of Congress because the power of the press is on the side of those in power.

if classified information is classified because of illegalities, its classified to cover up a crime, not national security. classified info acts should not apply.

 

[Cancel5]

Oversight in the Bush years, oh, my I about fell off my chair.

Was there oversight?

I don't think that was applicable in the last eight years.

The only one overseeing anything was Darth Dick!

 

[SmarterthanYou]

No they aren't and not one single member of the Gang of Eight is in any danger of prosecution.

That is not how Congress works.

Now that Bush is out of office and the classified documnets can be reviewed, are you in favor of prosecuting the Bush Administration?

yes. if they broke the law and then used the laws to hide the crime, they should be prosecuted.

 

[Jarod]

no, it does not, but it DOES make it a crime to know that it is continuing and you endorse it. Thats what these congress critters did by not demanding a stop to it, an investigation about it, and a prosecution because of it. And I say congress critters to include both parties.

So if I know about a crime and dont demand it be stoped I am endorsing it?

I know about lots of crimes, I am not demanding the activity be stoped, and I am not endorsing the activity.