Nancy Pelosi The Torture Enabler

[Better Believe It]

Pelosi The Enabler
by Robert Scheer

Nancy Pelosi is no Dick Cheney, nor a George W. Bush. She was neither the author of a systematic policy of torture nor has she been, like Cheney and most top Republicans in Congress, an enduring apologist for its practice. It is a nonsensical distraction to place her failure to speak out courageously as a critic of the Bush policies on the same level as those who engineered one of the most shameful debacles in U.S. history.

But what she, and anyone else who went along with this evil, as lackadaisically as she now claims, should be confronted with are the serious implications of their passive acquiescence. Why did she not speak up, or if it were a matter of a lack of reliable information, demand an accounting from the executive branch, as befits a leader of the loyal opposition in Congress?

If the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, and later House Democratic leader, lacked the authority to publicly question a policy of torture, then how can we condemn, indeed imprison, ordinary soldiers who thought it their duty to follow orders?

Even though Abu Zubaydah had been waterboarded 83 times before the September 2002 briefing of Pelosi, she now claims she was told only that the practice might be used and that it had been approved by the Bush Justice Department as legal. Wasn’t that approval in itself sufficiently alarming to justify a strong and public dissent? Certainly that would have been the appropriate response when Pelosi aide Michael Sheehy, along with Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., were informed by the CIA in no uncertain terms five months later that Zubaydah had been subjected to specific “enhanced” methods including waterboarding. Pelosi admits to possessing that information, but according to one of her aides quoted in Politico, after Harman’s letter questioning the practice received “no response” from the CIA, “there was nothing more that could be done.”

Why not? Does the CIA or the White House that directs its activities stand above the law without any congressional restraint, as mandated by the U. S. Constitution that Pelosi has sworn to uphold?

By acquiescing to the cover-up of unpleasant truths in the treatment of prisoners, Pelosi contributed to the betrayal of the ideal of public accountability that is the bedrock of our system of governance, which Congress is charged with protecting.

Please read the complete article at:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/05/13-1

[CJCRANE]

1. Did Bushco listen to anyone or let anything get in their way

at that time?

I don't think so.

[Better Believe It]

3. I just can't support her cowardly behavior. She could have spoken out publicly but failed to carry

out her constitutional duties.

[vaberella]

6. She couldn't...there's something called "classified."

She even says to this day until they un-classify the conversation...she cannot divulge any information.

[Mojorabbit]

10. I would love to see

what if any thing she did behind the scenes then. The classified memos of dissent she sent to the administration, etc. If she did nothing she is culpable.

[Better Believe It]

12. Oh yes she could have! She chose to remain silent about crimes committed by the Bush government

If she takes her oath to protect and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States seriously she was obligated to speak out.

I can't defend the cowardly behavior of Pelosi and others who knew and kept silent

All Pelosi and company had to say on torture was: "the Bush government is engaged in torturing people they claim might be terrorists"

We can't legally divulge the details of their torture program without the approval of the Bush administration. The details of their torture program are a big secret. WE have written a letter to President Bush asking for his permission to reveal the hard facts about his secret torture program."

Or something along those lines. You get the picture.

Do you think the Bush government would have dared prosecuted Pelosi and other members of Congress who had released such a statement?

And if Congresswomen Pelosi and company are unwilling to take risks in defense of our nation and Constitution they are at best cowards. They certainly are not reliable patriots and don't deserve our trust and support.

[vaberella]

16. Because I find most of what you say to be utter crap....

Well, that's about it.

[Better Believe It]

17. So I take it you care more about Pelosi's career than her obligations as U.S. Congresswomen

sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Well, you're entitled to that opinion.

Your "utter crap" comment was not a serious response to a serious political issue. But, if that's the best you can do that's unfortunate. You must be a political novice.

[jeanpalmer]

32. I doubt it

My guess is you can't classify illegal conduct, like torture. That would completely undermine our system of government. A president could commit criminal acts and then classify them to avoid prosecution/impeachment.

[Captain Hilts]

8. No, they didn't. There's not a damned thing she could have done. nt

[totodeinhere]

28. That's not the point. She should have fought tooth and nail against it anyway...

whether or not her opposition to the policy would have stopped it.

[emilyg]

2. kick

[HereSince1628]

4. If she is so stupid as to think a Bush admin document claiming torture is legal

then she needs to have her head and her history examined.

Holders of TS & C clearances with access to high secrets are not obliged to keep secret illegalities. Cheney's torture agenda was illegal on its face and in its actions. She didn't have to wear that million dollar smile and play along. Her name belongs in the ranks of the great appeasers like Chamberlain.

[vaberella]

5. I love how automatically Pelosi is guilty when there is nothing to say that's the case.

She stated her position and no one has said anything differently and she was not aware that "EITs" were in use and yet everyone is saying she knew. She also stated that they said there could be things in use and she told them point blank that she was NOT in support of them. Then Bob Graham came out yesterday and clearly stated he was at the meetings and he wasn't told about any EITs in use.

[Captain Hilts]

9. People are being played. nt

[Better Believe It]

14. Ya think Graham just might be lying? Hell no. They don't lie!

[vaberella]

15. Actually.

Based on this thread...most would disagree with you vehemently: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8401829#8401844

Even Repubs say he doesn't lie.

[Better Believe It]

18. He actually said he just doesn't remember what was said .... you know .... the old

"I don't recall what was said or what happened" routine.

That way you can't be charged with lying.

[theoldman]

7. So lets put Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld in prison.

We can then reprimand Pelosi and anyone else who had information on torture. All the people who voted for Bush should be chastised. This would be fair treatment to me.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[jeremyfive]

11. The Whole Congress is Late to the Party

Sure Dubya looks like pure garbage now for the amazing volume of crime he is responsible for--the picture gets worse and worse as more details emerge, but where was the Congress when Dubya was committing his crimes? There was way too much bending to Dubya's will as he trashed the country. He never should have been given the rubber-stamp for his terrible policies, and should have been prosecuted for every instance that he conducted his secret "business" dealings.

Now we are stuck with the clean-up, and it is very difficult to address the enormity of the crime at this late date.

Does anyone doubt seriously that Dubya lied to Pelosi just as he lied to the country?

[azmouse]

19. Save your outrage for those that ordered the torture and carried it out.

Pelosi may not be pure but she wasn't an active participant.

[jefferson_dem]

20. Robert Scheer or Sean Hannity.

I swear, we could fold the ideological spectrum in half and the extreme wings of both sides become virtually identical.

[Hippo_Tron]

21. They are breaking the law if they reveal anything from those Gang of 8 meetings...

So really it's not like they are in a position to oppose it. Maybe we do need more congressional oversight of covert operations. But that's the system's fault, not Pelosi's.

[Better Believe It]

22. So what? What's your point? What laws would they break and who wrote them?

[Hippo_Tron]

25. The National Security Act of 1947

[Better Believe It]

26. What section of the National Security Act of 1947?

[Hippo_Tron]

30. Section 801 instructs the President to create procedures for classified information

And gives guidelines as to the minimum standards for these guidelines.

Criminal penalties for leaking classified information are prescribed in 18 U.S.C. § 1924 and stiffer penalties under certain circumstances are prescribed under the Espionage Act.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RS21900.pdf

The information that Pelosi received was classified by the President of the United States with the authority he is given to do so under the National Security Act of 1947 as well as his authority as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces as prescribed by the constitution. Had she shared such information with unauthorized persons she would have been committing a crime.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[Jennicut]

23. Pelosi sucks but why all the attention on her to begin with? She is to blame on such a low level.

Lets deal with the real criminals first, then we can deal with Pelosi's incompetence. Isn't there anyone besides Cindy Sheehan who has threatened to run against her? Sigh. She really is not my favorite person in the world but this is such a Rethug trap.

[iconocrastic]

24. She's the speaker of the house

[Better Believe It]

27. Who seems to have lost her voice on urgent matters! A speaker of the House indeed!

[Jennicut]

34. True. But back then she was just in the minority.

[opihimoimoi]

29. I don't see this crap...this is BS...you are telling me she knew about WB and kept it secret?

I hardly think so....she knows better...and what would be her reason to hide crap like TORTURE? This is nuts

[Hippo_Tron]

31. She may have known but it would have been illegal for her to talk about it

It was classified information and it is a federal crime to share classified information with unauthorized persons.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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