When asking yourself whether or not Nancy Pelosi was complicit in torture,

[BuyingThyme]

you need not go further than her decision to take the Constitution off the table.

We have that thing for a reason.

[HereSince1628]

1. True, but the rest of DU has both of us and the other one on IGNORE.

our mousehole isn't even big enough for an echo.

[BuyingThyme]

4. Well, somebody's reading this crap.

How else could so many of my posts be alerted and deleted.

[HereSince1628]

6. Maybe I'll PM you, if I post it they'll award me a granite pizza.

[BuyingThyme]

23. Anybody can PM me about anything,

but I go long stretches without logging in.

[TahitiNut]

2. Were they using the table for a waterboard?

:dunce:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Naw. More sophisticated. A dry powder board. Very effective in torturing the left.

[tnlefty]

50. That's the funniest thing that I've read here in a while.

Dark, dry humor is my fav!

[Canuckistanian]

55. DUzy

:rofl:

[babylonsister]

3. I think this week, in my mind, it's got to be all about Cheney

and the lyin' he did. My fervent wishes go out that he gets caught with his foot ensnared in his esophagus.

[malaise]

42. And that alone is my only preoccupation at this time

Nancy must call their bluff. Special Prosecutor time.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

60. What people might not realize

is that Pelosi did not do what she did today without the approval and support of the White House.

I like it. Calling out the CIA is a ballsy thing to do, and Nancy's just the Speaker to do it.

It's very reminiscent of when Barry Goldwater found out the CIA had lied about mining harbors in Nicaragua, and he took to the floor of the Senate while it was in session. There, as angry as he'd ever been, Goldwater - BARRY FUCKING GOLDWATER! - began reading the secret CIA report into the Congressional Record.

The head of the Intelligence Committee stopped him, dragged him off the floor, and the Record was expunged.

Now, what was someone saying about the CIA never lies to the government?

Uh-huh.

BARRY FUCKING GOLDWATER.................

[babylonsister]

62. And more recently...Boner!

http://mediamattersaction.org/video/200905140006

Rep. Boehner: Now and Then
2 hours and 19 minutes ago


Today, May 14, 2009, Rep. John Boehner criticized Speaker Pelosi's press conference by saying, "it's hard for me to imagine that our intelligence area would ever mislead a member of Congress." Yet in 2007, Rep. Boehner criticized our nation's intelligence community by saying, "either I don't have confidence in what they told me several months ago or I don't have confidence in what they're telling me today." Once again, rather than finding the truth, Rep. Boehner is playing politics.

John Boehner Now

John Boehner: "I've dealt with our intelligence professionals for the last three-and-a-half years on an almost daily basis, and it's hard for me to imagine that our intelligence area would ever mislead a member of Congress. {Boehner Press Availability via The Hill, 5/14/2009}


John Boehner Then:

December 9, 2007:

Wolf Blitzer: "Are you suggesting, as I think you are, that you don't necessarily have confidence in this new NIE?"

Rep. John Boehner: "Either I don't have confidence in what they told me several months ago or I don't have confidence in what they're telling me today." (CNN, Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, 12/9/2007; emphasis added)

February 11, 2007:

Rep. John Boehner: "It's clear to all of us, Democrats and Republicans, that we have flawed intelligence. The CIA have bad intelligence, the Pentagon had bad intelligence and, for that matter, all of our allies around the world had the same bad intelligence. And so that's why Republicans voted to set up the National Intelligence Directorate to reform our intelligence activities." {NBC, Meet the Press, 2/11/07}
–Media Matters Action Network

[Tangerine LaBamba]

65. Boner has the historical understanding and perspective

of a scrambled egg.

I could theorize that those tanning sessions have baked his brain, but that requires a condition precedent - his having a brain - that I find questionable, so I'm just going to stay with the old "He's an ignoramus" and leave it at that.

What an embarrassment .............................

[NightWatcher]

5. I became an early Pelosi-hater, when she took everything off the table

I wont come running to defend John Conyers either

[lamp_shade]

7. Long time admirer here. I believe her.

[BuyingThyme]

12. I don't see how it matters whether or not she's telling the truth about the details

of the briefings. The media are just looking for a conflict there, but it's turning out to be a good thing for people who want more attention paid to the torture and other war crimes.

[The Magistrate]

8. This Is Nonesense, Ma'am

Legal responsibility is borne by the members of the Executive who conceived, planned, ordered, and carried out a program of torturing prisoners in custody. No one else bears the least criminal liability. In such a situation, cries of 'complicity' are simply noise. Since in most instances, this noise is made by persons who have for years been assailing leading Democrats as vile bodies engaged in black mischief of various sorts, it is clear than this is simply the pretext du jour, rather than a response to an actual problem or offense.

[BuyingThyme]

13. I just assumed that she swore to defend the Constitution because

she had a fleeting interest in defending the Constitution.

How do you know specifically who is criminally liable with Pelosi's efforts to block investigations and all?

[The Magistrate]

18. Calling That a Non-Sequitor, Ma'am, Would Over-State Its Relevance

There is no affirmative duty to impeach; not moving to impeach violates no requirement of Congressional office.

Who is criminally liable is determined by the relevant laws and precedents in their application to cases. Congress has no authority over members of the Executive branch, save as it has passed laws that criminalize behaviors such as torture of prisoners in custody. Enforcement of law is assigned to the Executive, through the Justice Department. The orders for torture originated in the Executive, and were carried out by subordinates of the Executive. The Legislative branch has nothing to do with it.

[BuyingThyme]

21. Yes, Congress has authority over the executive branch.

The Fathers had to find a way to give executive powers to Congress. You know what they came up with? Impeachment.

There's also that general oversight thing.

These things are important, the opposite of non-sequitur.

[The Magistrate]

29. None Of Those, Ma'am, Amount To Authority To Prosecute Breaches Of Law

Not even impeachment vindicates criminal law, since the sole penalty is removal from office upon conviction, and subsequent indictment and trial on criminal charges is not foreclosed by such removal. Nor does 'general over-sight' serve as prosecution; it can simply publicize. To affect the actions of members of the Executive branch, Congress can only pass a law, either signed by the Executive or with a two-thirds vote of both Houses over-riding a veto, and then that law must pass judicial muster as not constituting a usurpation of Executive prerogative. Even then, Ma'am, enforcement of that law lies in the hands of the Executive.

In such a framework, there can be no question of command responsibility attaching to the members of the Legislature for actions of the Executive.

[BuyingThyme]

31. Impeachment is a criminal proceeding carried out by politicians.

No different from any other criminal proceeding except to which branch of government it is assigned.

[The Magistrate]

40. No, Ma'am, It Is Not: It Is Quite Far From That

It is a political process which is expected to operate within certain legal parameters, though it does not always do so. It has no standing as a criminal proceeding; Congress has no standing as a Court in our system. England's Parliament had such standing in the past, and retains vestiges of it to this day; our Congress does not.

[BuyingThyme]

45. You are once again on the opposite side of correct.

Congress has jurisdiction over all federal impeachment cases.

Impeachment is a criminal proceeding by which high crimes and other misdemeanors are tried in Congress.

If you don't believe me, read the Constitution. It's pretty explicit.

[The Magistrate]

48. Impeachment Is Not A Criminal Proceeding, Ma'am

You may claim it is till blue in the face; it will make no difference to the facts.

[BuyingThyme]

49. I know you believe what you're saying. You're just wrong.

When people are banned from serving in government by way of impeachment, it is not a civil act. They are banned by law as punishment for a crime (or crimes).

Again, you have to realize that we're talking about the Constitution here. The Constitution is the law. When it says Congress tries "crimes" of impeachment, the proceeding is, by the definition of legal definitions, a criminal proceeding.

[The Magistrate]

51. It Is A Civil Act, Ma'am

A person who had been impeached could still be tried subsequently in Federal court 'in jeopardy of life or limb', which double jeopardy would preclude were impeachment a criminal trial for a violation of federal law.

Impeachment is a remedy which the Congress may choose to take against crimes of state, not all of which are violations of any statute, but which it is not obligated to take, and certainly violates no law by choosing not to take.

The idea that by refusing to press for a Bill of Impeachment Speaker Pelosi violated some law, or laid herself open to criminal charges of violating the U.N. Accord on Torture, or the General Articles of Geneva, or the War Crimes Act, is simply nonesense.

Not acting as you would have her act is not a crime, Ma'am: it is that simple.

[BuyingThyme]

54. You're still not getting this.

If you want to talk in terms of statutes, the statute is right there in the Constitution. The Congress is given exclusive jurisdiction over that statute.

As far as double jeopardy, it's a non-sequitur.

Here. Another way to read it: Can you give me an example of a civil proceeding (outside of your view of impeachment) where a body can be "tried" for "crimes" in a legal environment where "judgment" can lead to "conviction"?

[The Magistrate]

56. Ma'am, Your Refusal To Acknowledge Fact Does Not Reflect On My Understanding In This Matter

Or even, in this particular instance, on my powers of clarity in expression....

Double jeopardy is the test. A person can be subject to both civil and criminal trial for the same act; they cannot be subject to criminal trial twice in the same jurisdiction. A person can be subject to criminal trial for the same act in both a state court and a federal court, if the act breaks both state and federal law, but that is because the two courts have completely separate jurisdiction: double jeopardy bars repeated criminal trial in the same jurisdiction. If Congress is to be regarded as a court, it necessarily is a Federal one, and if its verdict was that of a Federal court in an impeachment case, no subsequent trial in Federal court would be possible. Indeed, impeachment after a criminal conviction in Federal court would be barred, which is simply nonesense, since that is the usual sequence in impeachment of Federal judges. Indeed, in at least one instance, a federal judge was impeached over something he had been acquitted of at criminal trial in a Federal court. HJe had, by trial verdict, committed no crime whatever, yet was impeached by the House and removed from office by the Senate. The Supreme Court has stated in decisions that Congress has no character as a court, such the old English Parliament has. Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding, and not a vindication of federal law against criminal violation of same.

[BuyingThyme]

58. Impeachment is a process by which a person is accused of (and perhaps tried for)

being unfit to serve.

Only Congress can try impeachment (in the case of the federal government) so there is no possibility of double jeopardy. Non-sequitur.

Impeachment is a criminal proceeding conducted by politicians. It says so right there in the Constitution.

[The Magistrate]

63. To Be Unfit For Office, Ma'am, is A Condition Of Person, Not An Act Of Crime

Impeachment is not a criminal trial.

Do you imagine removal from office meets the standards for penalty envisioned by either the Convention on Torture, Geneva's General Article Three, or the Federal War Crimes Act? If all that happened was removal from office, certainly the plain reading of treaty obligations would not have been met, and the act which puts those treaties into force of U.S. statute certainly envisions a good deal more....

[BuyingThyme]

64. If they're not crimes, why does the Constitution call them crimes?

More to the point, being that the Constitution calls them crimes, why do you say they're not?

On edit: Confusingly extraneous "it's."

[The Magistrate]

66. The Phrase, Ma'am, 'High Crimes And Misdemeanors'

Refers not to specific violations of statute, but to mis-use of the powers of office. The only specific violations referenced are treason and bribery. Neither of these applies in what we are discussing: the Constitutional definition of Treason has not been met even by the Bush administration, and money changing hands is not an issue in the mistreatment of prisoners in custody. It would be an impeachable offense, for instance, for a President to order subordinates not to enforce a law: it would not violate any specific statute, but would be at least a High Misdemeanor. But there is no affirmative duty for the Congress to impeach, and it is no crime for the Congress not to impeach, even if an argument there are solid grounds for impeachment can be made. Tp accuse someone of having committed a crime under international law or Federal stature for not contriving a Bill of Impeachment is beyond nonesense, reaching to some Dali-esque level of surreality.

[BuyingThyme]

68. That IS the statute. It's the Constitution you're quoting there.

As for this stuff about accusing someone of violating international law et cetera by way of refusing to impeach, I have not done that here. Complicity can be just as much a question of morality as of legality.

[The Magistrate]

69. The Constitution Is Not a Statute, Ma'am

Criminal violations are all that interests me.

[BuyingThyme]

70. The Constitution is nothing but statutes.

[The Magistrate]

71. No Ma'am, It Is Not

Statutes are put into effect as the Constitution allows, or sometimes directs. Wholly separate orders and categories of law.

[BuyingThyme]

72. ..

statute  /ˈstætʃut, -ʊt/
–noun

1. Law. a. an enactment made by a legislature and expressed in a formal document. b. the document in which such an enactment is expressed.

2. International Law. an instrument annexed or subsidiary to an international agreement, as a treaty.

3. a permanent rule established by an organization, corporation, etc., to govern its internal affairs.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/statute

[The Magistrate]

73. Thank You For Proving My Point, Ma'am

The Constitution was not established by the Congress, or any legislature, so it does not meet the leading definition you have cited. Indeed, it is the Constitution that establishes the Congress, among other things, and gives it authority to write statutes. Your third definition refers to private bodies, not governments, and to items which have no force outside that private body.

[BuyingThyme]

74. ..

legislature  /ˈlɛdʒɪsˌleɪtʃər/
–noun

a deliberative body of persons, usually elective, who are empowered to make, change, or repeal the laws of a country or state; the branch of government having the power to make laws, as distinguished from the executive and judicial branches of government.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/legislature

[The Magistrate]

75. The Constitutional Convention, Ma'am, Had None Of Those Enumerated Powers

Not one thing it did could have the least force without ratification by a number of states, either through acts of their independent legislatures or referendum among their voting citizens.

[BuyingThyme]

77. Oh, I thought they were writing the Constitution and stuff.

I wonder who wrote it.

[The Magistrate]

78. This Has Gone Past The Limits Of Cute, Ma'am, And Become Actively Boring

"It is wrong to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious."

[HereSince1628]

15. By the reading of what laws? Could you provide the links

to the relavent sections of the laws and treaties.

I think I need to reread those, because that is definitely NOT what I came away with.

[The Magistrate]

20. You Came Away, Sir, With What You Wanted To Come Away With: Grounds To Denounce Democrats

The criminal act is torturing prisoners in custody. It was ordered and executed by members of the Executive branch. The responsibility lies, and can lie, nowhere else.

[HereSince1628]

22. Well, I asked for some links. I'll do it again...

Could you provide some links that argue that lawmakers who consent by word and action are immune from prosecution of violations of international treaties?

I think that is a simple enough question to get an answer, _SIR_.

[HereSince1628]

32. Most people could find a link they knew to exist in 10 minutes if they wanted.

[The Magistrate]

41. Even More People, Sir, Recognize The Stalest Ploy In Internet Forensics, And Disdain To Play

You are welcome to wade through the Convention on Torture, the Geneva Accords, and the Federal Statutes on you own.

[HereSince1628]

43. Park the pretentious SIR bullshit.

I've contacted the admin about your gender bias.

I'm really just fed up above my nose with that.

[EFerrari]

19. You are right, Sir, in calling this latest right wing attack on the Speaker

the latest pretext. It is clearly that. And she will be found to have no criminal liability in the matter of the torture program.

But to say this is a right wing attack that lefty critics hop on as on a carousel for the afternoon and to say she is not criminally liable is not exactly a glowing defense, when you get right down to it.

Maybe you will agree with me that the power of the Executive and the dysfunction of our Congress (because the Senate is hopeless and should be left alone in hopes it won't do more damage if stirred) need to be addressed somehow.

[The Magistrate]

24. Thank You, Ma'am

We are in agreement that our system has become dysfunctional. Over generations, commencing with the Cold War, the Executive has arrogated to itself more power than was intended by the Founders, and the Congress has grown sheepish and timid in exercising its prerogatives as a co-equal branch, one that was intended to be 'first among equals' by the men who wrote the Constitution. Whether this can be successfully addressed, however, is unclear. A power directed by a single mind has great advantages in conflict with a group of separate minds. It can play off one against another while maintaining itself a coherent focus and strategy. People identify much more readily with a single embodying individual than they do with a congerie, particularly one which contains radically opposed elements within itself.

For my part, to say that Speaker Pelosi is not criminally liable for anything is sufficient, since my interest is criminal prosecution of those persons in the Bush administration who broke the law of the land regarding torture of prisoners in custody. It seems better to me to maintain the focus on that clear-cut point, and leave the atmospherics aside.

[BuyingThyme]

26. Criminal liability is probably not a very good threshold standard for House speakership.

[The Magistrate]

35. Speaker Pelosi, Ma'am, Is Quite Popular With Democratic Members of The House

And also with voters in her district. These are the 'thresholds' for holding the Speakership. Noise from persons wont to fulminate about 'weather-control' and 'earthquake machines' and 'U.S. personnel playing the role of al Queda in Iraq' is not going to establish a different one....

[BuyingThyme]

37. I was referring to you and your words.

[Robbien]

9. First prosecute the people who ordered the torture, then go after the enablers

If the people responsible for torture are not going to be prosecuted

why be so hot and bothered over the bit players?

[BuyingThyme]

16. Well, the bit players have prevented us from going after the people who ordered the torture.

[EFerrari]

28. Yes, she did that. And it's just fitting that now she may be more willing

to get the focus where it belongs. If you think about it, how else could this have turned out?

Wild.

[BuyingThyme]

46. I know. Karl Rove is kickin' some ass for us.

The Boner, too.

[NoSheep]

47. That's where I am with it.

[canetoad]

52. 'Enablers' is such a weak accusation

And it is one I see thrown about more and more often when hotheads have neither the evidence to blame the real perpetrators nor the fortitude to blame their own side outright.

The term is a pop-psychology invention, born of drug and alcohol abuse programs. It appears that in your mind you have labelled anyone who, regardless of the time, place and circumstance, did not actively denounce a practice of which they may not have been wholly aware as an ENABLER.

Sorry, but I say COP OUT. Do your research and please attempt to be more relevant in your accusations.

[FiveGoodMen]

10. Damn right!

[Forkboy]

14. I hate her, but that's hardly proof of complicity.

It plays into suspicions of those who already dislike her, and nothing more. You will need far more evidence than that.

[EFerrari]

25. The flap takes focus away from the main job, that's for sure.

It's like doing an expose of a passenger when the guy who drove at the hit-n-run is still at large.

[Swamp Rat]

17. I am much more interested in prosecuting Bushler&Co. at his time.

Nancy is way down my list. Though, the likes of Rove, Hannity, Limpballs, et al. would love to distract us with one of the lamest bait and switches I have ever seen.

[HereSince1628]

27. This isn't political. It can't be allowed to be political.

It is now widely believed around the entire planet that US elected officials, and officials appointed by elected officials and members of the US military and intelligence services tortured.

This MUST be investigated. It must be investigated at ALL levels. Nuremburg took years. This will also take years, once it is started.

[EFerrari]

33. And it will be thoroughly politicized here -- because that slows down

the process of holding criminals accountable. When they run out of Democrats, they'll go after military men currently serving Obama.

[HereSince1628]

36. Here, as in DU, really doesn't matter. Here as in the DOJ is what matters.

I could give a shit about what infotainment political chatrooms think is important.

[EFerrari]

38. I meant here in the United States. n/t

[mmonk]

30. She is not complicit. She has been derelict in her duties. There is a difference.

[BuyingThyme]

34. All be it semantic.

[mmonk]

44. A lesser offense.

[spanone]

39. if pelosi knew it's still about the crime of torture....the policy makers are the criminals

this is the typical muddying of the waters

it's not about nancy pelosi

[NNN0LHI]

53. Why would I ask myself a stupid fucking question like that?

Only people I have heard alleging that kind of tripe is Republicans.

Don

[The Magistrate]

57. See The O.P.'s No. 46 Above, Sir, For 'True Position' On That....

[opihimoimoi]

59. They come not to discourse but to seed doubt. They have nefarious and subversive intentions

The DSM-IV Diagnostic Criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder are:

A. A pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, lack of empathy, as indicated by at least five of:

1. a grandiose sense of self-importance
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3. believes that he or she is "special" and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
4. requires excessive admiration
5. has a sense of entitlement, ie unreasonable expectations of especially favourable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
6. is interpersonally exploitative, ie takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
7. lacks empathy and is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
8. is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviours or attitudes

The Bullies are of the Negative Polarity...stuck there by their long history of being Pricks and assholes

Obama has the Positive Pole...end of story for Pubs

[BuyingThyme]

61. Think about it for a moment.

How can your post be viewed as something other than a projection?

Really. Think about it.

[opihimoimoi]

79. Projection is as Projection was...I think of how them Pub Pricks have fucked this Nation and this

Planet...

Think of how we Humans could be advanced but for the GOP...they have fucked our nation into Misery...Fuck them Pubs...Cancerous and EVIL Bastids

[snot]

67. k&r'd

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. Constitution... you kid me right? That died in 2000

on December 12, 2000 to be exact.

The country is dead, just needs to be official. Serious

And we crossed the rubicon into ... EMPIRE... Empires don't need no stinking laws... and god damned it, we have a RIGHT to defend this since now it is OUR guy... which makes it A-OKAY!

Of course for the impaired, :sarcasm:

And it is almost impossible to make fun of these moronic views since now they are popular round these parts!

[wiggs]

80. You know what? You're frickin 100% right. Congress and DOJ have the responsibility of

oversight and they punted to the current administration, which has an uphill, more difficult route to accountability than congress did. Sucks.