Pelosi V6.0
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Her protests on a different issue at about the same time caused th Bush administration to change its plan and not carry forward the subject of her protest. A house minority leader has significant bully pulpit powers, plus she would have had most of the media on her side.
It would have been a criminal offense for Pelosi to publicise what she was told.
Rob Graham wrote:
She could, and should have protested the plans to use waterboarding. It might very well have made a difference (as if whether it would make a difference or not changes her culpability in any regard) That she did not, makes her at the least a hypocrite for complaining now, and possibly makes her culpable for permitting it to go forward. The fact that she now finds it necessary to lie also makes her a dishonest partisan without principle.
If she was briefed, then the normal thing for a committed opponent of torture to do would have been to object, I agree. She is still a minor player in this. On the question of whether she was briefed, I have an open mind. Bob Graham, who was on the Senate Intelligence committee says he wasn't briefed. Is it likely that the Senate committee wasn't briefed but the House committee was? Maybe Graham is lying too. Or is confused. Maybe the CIA is lying to cover its arse. Who knows. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104196363[^]
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
It would have been a criminal offense for Pelosi to publicise what she was told.
And, of course, She has never leaked information that she was not supposed to reveal? Even if she had felt bound by her oath (something I doubt) it is a matter of record that her protests to the CIA have stopped them from carrying out missions already under way. You suddenly seem strangely naive about the way American politics works.
John Carson wrote:
Bob Graham, who was on the Senate Intelligence committee says he wasn't briefed.
I knew from the moment Corrazine (Now governor of NJ, then on the Intelligence Committee) went on TV (right after the pictures were released) to announce that he never - ever- knew, suspected or even considered that the CIA used waterboarding (even though no-one had asked him about it) that this issue would see a number of Senators and Congressmen lying through their teeth about what they knew and when they knew it.
John Carson wrote:
Maybe Graham is lying too. Or is confused. Maybe the CIA is lying to cover its arse.
The CIA is simply defending itself - something Pelosi did not count on. They have already let slip that they have detailed notes about what happened at the briefings in question. All that needs be done is the memos be declassified like the original pictures that started this firestorm were.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
John Carson wrote:
It would have been a criminal offense for Pelosi to publicise what she was told.
And, of course, She has never leaked information that she was not supposed to reveal? Even if she had felt bound by her oath (something I doubt) it is a matter of record that her protests to the CIA have stopped them from carrying out missions already under way. You suddenly seem strangely naive about the way American politics works.
John Carson wrote:
Bob Graham, who was on the Senate Intelligence committee says he wasn't briefed.
I knew from the moment Corrazine (Now governor of NJ, then on the Intelligence Committee) went on TV (right after the pictures were released) to announce that he never - ever- knew, suspected or even considered that the CIA used waterboarding (even though no-one had asked him about it) that this issue would see a number of Senators and Congressmen lying through their teeth about what they knew and when they knew it.
John Carson wrote:
Maybe Graham is lying too. Or is confused. Maybe the CIA is lying to cover its arse.
The CIA is simply defending itself - something Pelosi did not count on. They have already let slip that they have detailed notes about what happened at the briefings in question. All that needs be done is the memos be declassified like the original pictures that started this firestorm were.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
And, of course, She has never leaked information that she was not supposed to reveal? Even if she had felt bound by her oath (something I doubt) it is a matter of record that her protests to the CIA have stopped them from carrying out missions already under way. You suddenly seem strangely naive about the way American politics works.
I think it is a bigger deal to leak information that could see you in jail and, short of that, kill your career stone dead, as well as prevent the opposition party from receiving briefings in the future. I think that politicians take the secrecy surrounding these national security briefings very seriously.
Oakman wrote:
The CIA is simply defending itself - something Pelosi did not count on.
If Pelosi is right, then they were doing it before she opened her mouth.
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
And it was Democrats, not Republicans, who led the push to pass legislation requiring that the Army Field Manual define the standard for treatment of detainees.
Which is strange because the Army Field Manual I remember already defined those standards. :confused:
John Carson wrote:
Many Democrats went along with a whole lot of stuff from Bush, from giving him authorisation for the Iraq War, to supporting the Patriot Act and giving Bush support over domestic spying.
A lot of the country did. I was a time when we needed desperately to come together. There's no fault attached to having done so - or to later having decided that Bush went too far. What I view with great contempt is the acts of people like Pelosi who try to rewrite history by claiming that she never did what it is obvious she did, and now wish to conduct witch hunts aimed at people who she once supported.
John Carson wrote:
There is still a big difference between initiating and giving effect to policies, on the one hand, and failing to oppose policies on the other hand.
Sorry, but that isn't true. At least in this country. Accessories before and after the fact are considered guilty of the same crime. These niceties of motivation belong in church or college beer hall, not in a court of law.
John Carson wrote:
Whatever Pelosi is guilty of, let her pay the price for it
I think that's happening. As I said to Stan, it appears that her fellow Democrats are deserting her faster than the Republicans did Larry Craig - and with more reason, I suppose.
John Carson wrote:
They then immediately look around for someone on the other side who might have a less than perfect record.
As you say, that's the way politics is played. However, the Republicans did not reopen investigations into Clinton's malfeasance in spite of the fact that none of them had contributed to his getting blow jobs in the oval office or lying to a grand jury under oath. There is also a time to let bygones be bygones - which Pelosi and some of her equally rabid supporters seemed unwilling to do. The concept that what is sauce for the ganders (the Pres and the first in line of succession) is also sauce for the goose (the second in line) sets very appropriate. Y
Oakman wrote:
Which is strange because the Army Field Manual I remember already defined those standards.
Defines them for the army, not for the CIA and other organizations.
Oakman wrote:
What I view with great contempt is the acts of people like Pelosi who try to rewrite history by claiming that she never did what it is obvious she did, and now wish to conduct witch hunts aimed at people who she once supported.
It is contemptible if true. I am not yet convinced on this. I realise that Pelosi doesn't look credible, but Pelosi can be a pretty abysmal public performer.
Oakman wrote:
Sorry, but that isn't true. At least in this country. Accessories before and after the fact are considered guilty of the same crime.
No they aren't. Being, say, an accessory to murder is a lesser offence than murder. Moreover, merely knowing that something is going on and not doing anything about it isn't sufficient to make a person an accessory, e.g., a bystander to a beating who fails to intervene is not normally guilty of a crime, however much one might disapprove of the failure to intervene. Whether or not Pelosi approved of waterboarding etc. had no legal effect; her approval was not legally or administratively required.
John Carson
-
Oakman wrote:
Which is strange because the Army Field Manual I remember already defined those standards.
Defines them for the army, not for the CIA and other organizations.
Oakman wrote:
What I view with great contempt is the acts of people like Pelosi who try to rewrite history by claiming that she never did what it is obvious she did, and now wish to conduct witch hunts aimed at people who she once supported.
It is contemptible if true. I am not yet convinced on this. I realise that Pelosi doesn't look credible, but Pelosi can be a pretty abysmal public performer.
Oakman wrote:
Sorry, but that isn't true. At least in this country. Accessories before and after the fact are considered guilty of the same crime.
No they aren't. Being, say, an accessory to murder is a lesser offence than murder. Moreover, merely knowing that something is going on and not doing anything about it isn't sufficient to make a person an accessory, e.g., a bystander to a beating who fails to intervene is not normally guilty of a crime, however much one might disapprove of the failure to intervene. Whether or not Pelosi approved of waterboarding etc. had no legal effect; her approval was not legally or administratively required.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Defines them for the army, not for the CIA and other organizations.
And what else should the Army Field Manual concern itself with? The CIA, the DIA, and the FBI, for instance, are not the Army - something I would have thought the Dems knew.
John Carson wrote:
I realise that Pelosi doesn't look credible, but Pelosi can be a pretty abysmal public performer.
Pelosi in the past has carried off press conferences with great aplomb - even joint ones with Bush. That deer-in-the-headlights look comes from her realising that there's no way out.
John Carson wrote:
Being, say, an accessory to murder is a lesser offence than murder.
Not in Canada, the U.S., England, Scotland, Norway, France and Wales. I looked it up. Oz has different rules. But you must learn not to judge the world by your island continent's way of doing things. We don't have laws protecting koala's either. ;)
John Carson wrote:
her approval was not legally or administratively required.
If she knew a crime was being committed, she is legally bound to report that crime. As the second in line of succession, it is imperative that she act to insure that the U.S. government act legally. The truth is that she knew, and approved of what was going on - until she saw political advantage in saying otherwise. You and others who tend to toe the liberal line would serve yourselves and your cause far better by admitting that she is dead in the water and going down. The arguments being made to defend her become more and more absurd as time goes by.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Oakman wrote:
And, of course, She has never leaked information that she was not supposed to reveal? Even if she had felt bound by her oath (something I doubt) it is a matter of record that her protests to the CIA have stopped them from carrying out missions already under way. You suddenly seem strangely naive about the way American politics works.
I think it is a bigger deal to leak information that could see you in jail and, short of that, kill your career stone dead, as well as prevent the opposition party from receiving briefings in the future. I think that politicians take the secrecy surrounding these national security briefings very seriously.
Oakman wrote:
The CIA is simply defending itself - something Pelosi did not count on.
If Pelosi is right, then they were doing it before she opened her mouth.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
I think it is a bigger deal to leak information that could see you in jail
Doesn't matter what you think, or I think. The fact is that the law says she was bound to report it and by not doing so she became equally culpable - assuming, of course, that there was a crime committed.
John Carson wrote:
If Pelosi is right, then they were doing it before she opened her mouth.
If pigs had wings, they'd be pigeons. If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride. If Pelosi is right, the sun will rise in the west tomorrow.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
John Carson wrote:
Defines them for the army, not for the CIA and other organizations.
And what else should the Army Field Manual concern itself with? The CIA, the DIA, and the FBI, for instance, are not the Army - something I would have thought the Dems knew.
John Carson wrote:
I realise that Pelosi doesn't look credible, but Pelosi can be a pretty abysmal public performer.
Pelosi in the past has carried off press conferences with great aplomb - even joint ones with Bush. That deer-in-the-headlights look comes from her realising that there's no way out.
John Carson wrote:
Being, say, an accessory to murder is a lesser offence than murder.
Not in Canada, the U.S., England, Scotland, Norway, France and Wales. I looked it up. Oz has different rules. But you must learn not to judge the world by your island continent's way of doing things. We don't have laws protecting koala's either. ;)
John Carson wrote:
her approval was not legally or administratively required.
If she knew a crime was being committed, she is legally bound to report that crime. As the second in line of succession, it is imperative that she act to insure that the U.S. government act legally. The truth is that she knew, and approved of what was going on - until she saw political advantage in saying otherwise. You and others who tend to toe the liberal line would serve yourselves and your cause far better by admitting that she is dead in the water and going down. The arguments being made to defend her become more and more absurd as time goes by.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
And what else should the Army Field Manual concern itself with? The CIA, the DIA, and the FBI, for instance, are not the Army - something I would have thought the Dems knew.
You are rather missing the point. They were looking around for a standard to define acceptable interrogation for all relevant organisations and, rather than invent one from scratch, they decided that the standards in the Army Field Manual would serve the purpose.
Oakman wrote:
Pelosi in the past has carried off press conferences with great aplomb - even joint ones with Bush. That deer-in-the-headlights look comes from her realising that there's no way out.
I've seen her performing pretty attrociously too. You may be right, but I am suspending judgment.
Oakman wrote:
Not in Canada, the U.S., England, Scotland, Norway, France and Wales. I looked it up.
That surprises me, but you are correct. I've learned something.
Oakman wrote:
If she knew a crime was being committed, she is legally bound to report that crime.
She was legally bound not to disclose what she was told. And presumably she was told that the procedure was legally authorised. I very much doubt that she could be convicted of a crime. And, if she was told that the procedures had been cleared by the Justice Dept, to whom should she have reported the crime? I think you are being silly.
Oakman wrote:
The truth is that she knew, and approved of what was going on - until she saw political advantage in saying otherwise.
Possibly, but she is still basically just a bystander.
Oakman wrote:
You and others who tend to toe the liberal line would serve yourselves and your cause far better by admitting that she is dead in the water and going down.
Well, if a bystander is going down, then I look forward to seeing Cheney in chains.
John Carson
-
Oakman wrote:
And what else should the Army Field Manual concern itself with? The CIA, the DIA, and the FBI, for instance, are not the Army - something I would have thought the Dems knew.
You are rather missing the point. They were looking around for a standard to define acceptable interrogation for all relevant organisations and, rather than invent one from scratch, they decided that the standards in the Army Field Manual would serve the purpose.
Oakman wrote:
Pelosi in the past has carried off press conferences with great aplomb - even joint ones with Bush. That deer-in-the-headlights look comes from her realising that there's no way out.
I've seen her performing pretty attrociously too. You may be right, but I am suspending judgment.
Oakman wrote:
Not in Canada, the U.S., England, Scotland, Norway, France and Wales. I looked it up.
That surprises me, but you are correct. I've learned something.
Oakman wrote:
If she knew a crime was being committed, she is legally bound to report that crime.
She was legally bound not to disclose what she was told. And presumably she was told that the procedure was legally authorised. I very much doubt that she could be convicted of a crime. And, if she was told that the procedures had been cleared by the Justice Dept, to whom should she have reported the crime? I think you are being silly.
Oakman wrote:
The truth is that she knew, and approved of what was going on - until she saw political advantage in saying otherwise.
Possibly, but she is still basically just a bystander.
Oakman wrote:
You and others who tend to toe the liberal line would serve yourselves and your cause far better by admitting that she is dead in the water and going down.
Well, if a bystander is going down, then I look forward to seeing Cheney in chains.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
You are rather missing the point.
I know. I shouldn't have gotten carried away. :-O
John Carson wrote:
you are correct. I've learned something
One of the things I admire about you is your ability to say that. So many folks seem to react as if the alternative to being right all the time is death. You, obviously, understand that the ability to be wrong and to learn from it is a sign of the ability to grow - i.e. stay alive.
John Carson wrote:
And, if she was told that the procedures had been cleared by the Justice Dept, to whom should she have reported the crime?
A very legit argument - one I expect a number of people in the Bush Administration to use.
John Carson wrote:
Possibly, but she is still basically just a bystander.
Then she should leave congress. We do not elect people to have them be bystanders and her position in the leadership of our government makes the requirement that she not stand by doubly imperative.
John Carson wrote:
Well, if a bystander is going down, then I look forward to seeing Cheney in chains.
I hope you know me well enough to realise that I would enjoy seeing them both wearing one half of the same leg irons. (Where's the "way-evil-grin" icon?)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Her protests on a different issue at about the same time caused th Bush administration to change its plan and not carry forward the subject of her protest. A house minority leader has significant bully pulpit powers, plus she would have had most of the media on her side.
It would have been a criminal offense for Pelosi to publicise what she was told.
Rob Graham wrote:
She could, and should have protested the plans to use waterboarding. It might very well have made a difference (as if whether it would make a difference or not changes her culpability in any regard) That she did not, makes her at the least a hypocrite for complaining now, and possibly makes her culpable for permitting it to go forward. The fact that she now finds it necessary to lie also makes her a dishonest partisan without principle.
If she was briefed, then the normal thing for a committed opponent of torture to do would have been to object, I agree. She is still a minor player in this. On the question of whether she was briefed, I have an open mind. Bob Graham, who was on the Senate Intelligence committee says he wasn't briefed. Is it likely that the Senate committee wasn't briefed but the House committee was? Maybe Graham is lying too. Or is confused. Maybe the CIA is lying to cover its arse. Who knows. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104196363[^]
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Bob Graham, who was on the Senate Intelligence committee says he wasn't briefed. ... Maybe Graham is lying too. Or is confused.
Graham has a reputation of both honesty and a nearly obsessive compulsion when it comes to documenting his actions. The CIA claimed that he was briefed 4 times when his record only indicate once. Given the cast of players in this faux drama, Graham is the most believable. When it comes to torture, the CIA,including Goss, have a consistent record of lying. Even more to the point, Pelosi has already admitted that she became aware of ongoing torture in the Spring of '03 and did nothing. Put that together with her continue calls for a Truth Commission, it makes it look like she is on pretty solid ground in regards to what she was told in the September 02 briefing. As you said earlier "Republicans are really quite brilliant at misdirection, at making big issues about small, marginally relevant things."