As much as I want to believe Pelosi ...

[Mme. Defarge]

these articles going back to 2007 make that difficult:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html?hpid=topnews

Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002
In Meetings, Spy Panels' Chiefs Did Not Protest, Officials Say

TOOLBOX
Resize Print E-mail Save/Share + DiggNewsvinedel.icio.usStumble It!RedditFacebookmyspaceNewsTrust
COMMENT
washingtonpost.com readers have posted 730 comments about this item.
View All Comments »

Comments are closed for this item.
Discussion PolicyYour browser's settings may be preventing you from commenting on and viewing comments about this item. See instructions for fixing the problem.
Discussion Policy CLOSEComments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

Who's Blogging» Links to this article
By Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, December 9, 2007; Page A01

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/09/democrats/

Sunday Dec. 9, 2007 08:00 EST
Democratic complicity in Bush's torture regimen
(updated below)

The Washington Post reports today that the Bush administration, beginning in 2002, repeatedly briefed leading Congressional Democrats on the Senate and House Intelligence Committees -- including, at various times, Jay Rockefeller, Nancy Pelosi, and Jane Harman -- regarding the CIA's "enhanced interrogation methods," including details about waterboarding and other torture measures. With one exception (Harman, who vaguely claims to have sent a letter to the CIA), these lawmakers not only failed to object to these policies, but affirmatively supported them.

This information was almost certainly leaked to the Post by intelligence officials who are highly irritated -- understandably so -- from watching the manipulative spectacle whereby these Democrats now prance around as outraged victims of policies to which they deliberately acquiesced, when they weren't fully supporting them. Numerous liberal bloggers are already drawing the only conclusions that can be drawn, and expressing their outrage and horror at the Democratic Party leadership. Those sentiments are indisputably appropriate, and I just want to add a few more points to them.

Jay Rockefeller was one of the key Democrats briefed on the torture methods who never objected. But it's far worse than that. In September, 2006, Rockefeller was one of 12 Senate Democrats to vote in favor of the Military Commissions Act, one of the principal purposes of which was to explicitly authorize the CIA's "enhanced interrogation program" to proceed (even though it continues to be illegal under the Geneva Conventions). Thus, not only did Rockefeller remain silent when continuously briefed on illegal torture methods by the CIA, he then voted to legalize those methods by voting in favor of one of the most Draconian laws in modern American history. That law also retroactively immunized government officials from any liability for past lawbreaking.

http://www.discourse.net/archives/2007/12/senators_and_representatives_could_have_spoken_out_on_waterboarding_the_constitution_protects_their_right_to_speak_out_without_fear_of_legal_consequences.html

On the fringes of the public sphere

« Post-Quality Journalism | Main | Miami Is Different »
December 09, 2007
Senators and Representatives Could Have Spoken Out On Waterboarding: the Constitution Protects Their Right to Speak Out Without Fear of Legal Consequences
A number of the best internet commentators are discussing today’s news that a few of the leading Congressional Democrats may have been – probably were – briefed about the administration’s plans to torture (waterboard, and maybe more) suspected terrorists being held in secret CIA facilities abroad. There’s confusion about the facts, with few of the people allegedly briefed confirming the story. Notably, however, it appears that of those briefed, only Rep. Jane Harman objected. (Note that we’re still at an early spin stage here — more facts about who said what to whom are likely to come out.)

The emerging consensus in the blogosphere seems to be that even if they had the presence of mind to object, the Representatives and Senators who were briefed were in a bind: as members of the Intelligence Committees or the leadership, they signed various secrecy pledges which stopped them from going public. To go public, it seems to be agreed, was to “jeopardize their careers and risk jail” as Kevin Drum put it; even so, Matthew Yglesias suggests that this called for civil disobedience, and that the representatives should have dared the administration to arrest them.

All this misses a critical aspect of our constitutional structure. Thanks to the Speech and Debate Clause there was a way for any Senator or Representative who wanted to blow the whistle to do so in a way that involved no risk of jail or fines – at worst they might have lost their security clearances (and even there the law is a little murky).

[Justitia]

1. Yeah, because going after Pelosi is so much more important than the actual War Criminals & Torturers

who are committing these acts.

:crazy:

[mike_c]

if Pelosi is complicit then she is ONE of them too...

...and "going after" her is entirely appropriate, IMO. The war criminals MUST be brought to justice. If Pelosi is one of them, then let the chips fall where they fall.

[cali]

4. it is a distraction.

focus on the ones that authorized, designed and conducted torture. If she fall by wayside as a result, fine, but we shouldn't focus on her.

[Justitia]

5. You keep that up. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, people are publicly confessing to torture.

You know - REAL acts of torture & war crimes.

But please, don't let that distract you from your personal vendetta against the Democratic Speaker of the House.

Jesus F'ing Christ, this place is the Twilight Zone.

[napi21]

2. The reason I believe Pelosi is the history of lying & secrecy of

EVERYBODY in the Shrub Admin! There is NO WAY they would have been mpre forthcoming to congress than they were with US! It's a lot like being a witness in court and the prosecutor says "Have you lied in the past...YES. How many times...MANY. Then why in the world should we believe you now?"

[bottomtheweaver]

3. Washington Post = CIA.

So f*ck anything that rag has to say about the CIA or anything else. :mad:

[emulatorloo]

6. Who is more credible? Sen Bob Graham or BOEHNER and Cheney's crowd at the CIA

Graham backs Pelosi up.

[pkdu]

7. Two VERY KEY points made in that article from 2007

1. "and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk."

HAD DEVISED - as in had created but NOT yet implemented ( which was a lie of omission at best as we now know Zubayda was waterboarded 83 times in Aug 2003

2. "Pelosi declined to comment directly on her reaction to the classified briefings. But a congressional source familiar with Pelosi's position on the matter said the California lawmaker did recall discussions about enhanced interrogation. The source said Pelosi recalls that techniques described by the CIA were still in the planning stage -- they had been designed and cleared with agency lawyers but not yet put in practice -- and acknowledged that Pelosi did not raise objections at the time."

STILL IN THE PLANNING STAGE - as in not yet implemented...she was lied to and she's saying as was said in 2007.

Note - "cleared with agency lawyers".... yes I'm disappointed a bigger ruckus wasnt made at the time but they were told OLC lawyers have signed off , CIA lawyers have signed off , and anyway , you cant go public.

So - lets get off of Pelosi and onto the real Perps.

P