Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Bush, Cheney, Pelosi and Testifying About Torture
I.F. Stone used to joke that what passed for investigative journalism in Washington was actually just the restating of what was already in the public record at the appropriate time.
So it is that The Politico is making a big deal today about supposed "revelations" regarding House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's knowledge of the Bush-Cheney administration's use of so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques." House Republicans, and their amen corner in the media, are claiming that "new revelations" suggest Pelosi had a role in promoting the use of waterboarding.
"If someone is going to schedule hearings, I believe that the first witness should be Nancy Pelosi," Michigan Congressman Pete Hoekstra, the hyper-partisan Republican who serves as the ranking member on the House intelligence committee, chirps in the Politico report. "Clearly, she was involved in policy formulation."
That's sexy spin.
Unfortunately for Hoekstra and the Politico, it is detached from reality. And that detachment is being promoted by defenders of the Bush-Cheney administration who are working night and day to block a comprehensive inquiry into potentially criminal abuses of power by the former president and vice president and their aides.
First off, we have little in the way of "new revelations."
Some of us began writing a year and a half ago about the fact that Pelosi, a longtime member of the House Intelligence Committee, was briefed in 2002 on waterboarding. Here's a link to "Pelosi and Torture" -- a piece I wrote in December, 2007.
After detailing concerns about Pelosi's participation in meetings where waterboarding was discussed -- and the suggestion that she and others might have asked if the techniques being used were "tough enough" -- I argued that:
If this is the case, Pelosi has provided aid and comfort to the Bush administration's efforts to deviate not just from the standards set by international agreements regarding war crimes but from the provision of the Bill of Rights that establishes basic requirements with regard to the treatment of prisoners who are in the custody of the United States.Those deviations are precisely the sort of impeachable offenses that Pelosi has said are "off the table." Her association with the administration on the matter of torture necessarily calls into question the speaker's credibility on questions of how and when to hold the administration to account. It also begs a more mundane political question: At a point when Republicans like John McCain are earning points with their forthright stances against waterboarding, isn't the credibility and the potential effectiveness of the House Democratic Caucus as an honest player in the debate profoundly harmed by the involvement of its leader in behind-the-scenes meetings that by all accounts encouraged the use of that technique?
Pelosi has since offered a relatively detailed and, to the view of many observers, compelling defense of her participation in the CIA briefings. To wit:
Of the forty CIA briefings to Congress reported recently in the press, I was only briefed once, on September 4, 2002, as I have previously stated. As I said in my statement of December 9, 2007: 'I was briefed on interrogation techniques the Administration was considering using in the future. The Administration advised that legal counsel for both the CIA and the Department of Justice had concluded that the techniques were legal.' I had no further briefings on the techniques.My understanding of the briefing I received is consistent with the description that CIA General Counsel Scott Muller provided to Congresswoman Jane Harman in a letter dated February 28, 2003, which states: 'As we informed both you and the leadership of the Intelligence Committees last September, a number of Executive Branch lawyers including lawyers from the Department of Justice participated in the determination that, in the appropriate circumstances, the use of these techniques is fully consistent with U.S. law.' As reported in the press, the accompanying memo from CIA Director Panetta concedes that the descriptions provided by the CIA may not be accurate.
Reasonable people may differ on whether the speaker is being as forthcoming as need be -- although former Senate Intelligence Committee chair Bob Graham has stepped forward to corroborate her statements -- and on the extent to which she is complicit with the former administration. I remain disappointed about Pelosi's decision to block the necessary accountability moment in 2007, and I remain genuinely concerned that her caution with regard to impeachment was influenced by personal and political considerations rather than by the best interests of the republic.
But our purpose now should be to get beyond the base political positioning and partisan gamesmanship that has blocked not just accountability but the restoration of our system of checks and balances.
This brings us to the question Pete Hoekstra unwittingly poses: Should Pelosi be encouraged to testify -- before a Senate inquiry (my preference), some other congressional hearing or an independent commission -- about what she knew and when she knew it?
Absolutely.
Indeed, with the mounting evidence -- much of it provided by former Vice President Dick Cheney in his confessional interviews with friendly journalists -- that the Bush-Cheney administration conspired to create a false legal construct to "justify" the use of torture, Pelosi's testimony could be highly significant.
Pelosi should be grilled on this. If if she feels some heat for her past actions, so be it.
When all is said and done, however, it is likely that she will be a bit player in this drama.
It would seem that Pelosi is in a position to confirm that the former administration and its allies at the CIA lied to Congress and the American people about illegal activities that were in direct conflict with the Constitution.
The point here ought not be to condemn nor to absolve Pelosi, or others who participated in those briefings.
The point should be to get to the truth of what an administration that enjoyed something akin to absolute power in 2002 did with that power.
Cheney's statements suggest that the truth will be far more harmful to the former vice president, his aides, his lawyers and others associated with the Bush-Cheney administration than to the current Speaker of the House.
Pelosi participated in those briefings as a relatively new member of the leadership team of a minority caucus in a House of Representatives that after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was dramatically deferential to the executive branch.
In other words, it is absurd to suggest that she was -- or could have been -- a definitional player in the outlining or implementation of schemes to employ cruel and unusual punishment to extract dubious information from prisoners of the United States government.
As such, Pete Hoekstra's claim with regard to Pelosi -- "Clearly, she was involved in policy formulation" -- is ridiculous on its face. Hoekstra's ranting can and should be exposed for what it is: An attempt to scare Democrats (and sensible Republicans) away from pursuing a needed inquiry into who actually formulated, authorized and practiced deception with regard to the use of torture techniques.
What to do? Call Hoekstra's bluff.
Pelosi should agree to testify, thoroughly, cooperatively and under oath.
George Bush, Dick Cheney and all of their aides and lawyers should be expected to do the same.
As someone who has been highly critical of Pelosi on these issues, I don't see grounds for a credible claim that "she was involved in policy formulation." (If she was, of course, then she, too, should be held to account.)
I do see grounds for a credible claim that Pelosi was lied to.
And I am certain that the Speaker has a responsibility to help investigators get to the bottom of the question of who formulated those torture policies -- and the lies associated with them.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
35 Comments so far
Show All-The point here ought not be to condemn nor to absolve Pelosi, or others who participated in those briefings.
-The point should be to get to the truth of what an administration that enjoyed something akin to absolute power in 2002 did with that power.
Yes, and don't forget prosecution either, Mr. Nichols.
Let me see........There will be a Bi-Partisan ommission set up to investigate themselves and their negligence just like the 9/11 Commission......A Director will be selected to control the information and testimony that will be allowed to be heard by the commission just like Philip Zellikow, Profound Neo Conservative linked to Condoleeza Rice, was chosen to control the 9/11 Commission (Remember, no testimony about explosives or explosions or about the mysterious disappearance of a plane and a missle sized hole in the Pentagon and much much more) ........
In the end, the Commission will write a 1000 page report exonerating everyone and claiming that a bunch of men were guilty of bad judgement.(There will be no testimony about the missing 200 + hours of torture video tapes. There will be no testimony about the disappearance of 100 or more detainees. There will be no testimony about the 27 men who died after they were tortured. There will be no testimony about Abu Ghraib. There will be no testimony about the secret detention camps throughout the world. And, "I can not recall," will be the answer given by every Aide, Director, or General.
Unfortunately, all too true! The American people have lost their country because of: Apathy, ignorance,the brainwashing of the whore MSM, the MIC, greed, American hubris and hegemony;loss of principles and integrity; the perdition of our Constitution by corrupt politicians and attorney's; ad nauseum. The only hope, from my perspective, is if enough good people wake up and say we are not going to allow this in our name anymore; otherwise, in the future, they may be using torture on innocent protestors and good Americans.
Cheney has already said that he would not be willing to testify under oath and he just threw Bush under the bus when he said Bush signed off on torture, so it appears to me, he is starting to feel the heat and that is the reason he is giving all the whore interviews.
rumsfeld, too, is starting to feel the need for a good defense fund.
hence the push to up sales of Tamiflu via the swine flu scare.
Pelosi, IMHO, will not cooperate unless she fears for her job more than fearing about losing advancement opportunities.
Since she was re-elected, yet again, even after she took impeachment off her table, even after all her broken promises of those 'first 100 hours', she won't work for us, but will continue to do what she does best, advance her career.
There will be no prosecutions of the serious crimes did by Bush/Cheney or anyone else while Eric Holder is A.G. He cut a deal with the repugs to get the job by getting their votes.
Cheney will continue to give his I.Q finger to the American people along with that sadistic stupid grin. Eric Holder is not the right man for the job. There are reasons to believe he is not intelligent enough to prosecute.
Intelligent enough, or principled enough?
Gotta love them GOPathologicals... always throwing any available body under any available bus to cover their own murdering, thieving asses...
But it doesn't matter, at the moment, which Congressperson knew what when - what matters is top-down: Bush, Cheney, Rice, etc. Those who authorized the inhumane law-breaking, then lied about said authorization, and those who executed said authorizations.
By the time we get down to the lower Pelosi-level rungs, it won't matter.
Hell, the entire other side of the isle covered up Mark pervert Foley for 10 years - how about we nail every one of them for enabling the abuse of teenage pages...?
It's going to be hard to find people who aren't tainted by complicity. Even if they didn't know, for sure - surely, like many of us, they suspected. Otherwise, they are incompetent, and we don't want them taking the job anyway. So we're in a double-bind here - which is what happens when you cross that line. Morality is NOT relative. You can't be and not be at the same time, regarless of what Schroedinger claims. That's why we have compassion - for mitigating circumstances. But if we don't pursue the spirit of the law with equal vigor used to pursue the letter of the law - then we have no law. Maybe that's why the world sees us as barbarians and savages - if the shoe fits, wear it. Just because we didn't put previous criminals on trial is no reason to avoid charging the ones at hand - otherwise, the horrors will never end. We saw that in Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan - impunity greeds arrogance and corruption. Holding people accountable is the only way to fix the problem - and sometimes the sacrifice of the few is worth it to preserve the health of the many - we have to start living by the law, and requiring everyone to abide by the law - no more exceptions for any reason. That's where compassionate sentencing comes into play - but we have to try our criminals, all of them, and ASAP. If we don't, the future will only get worse - for all of us.
Torture is illegal. We put to death Japanese soldiers who waterboarded our soldiers. Reagan signed a treaty expressly forbidding torture.
It is illegal.
If anyone, absolutely anyone, had anything to do with enabling, causing, effecting, ordering, or participating in torture no matter who they are, Republican, Democrat, Independent, Doctor, lawyer, soldier, or civilian, we must prosecute them to the full extent of the law and, if found guilty, be prepared to execute them as we executed Japanese soldiers for the exact same crime.
If you wish to deter torture, you cannot give anyone a pass, ever.
When the Republicans try to stall the process by throwing Pelosi out as a roadblock, just smile and say, "Of course we will investigate her." Then blast through that roadblock and simply do it.
This is such an easy moral and legal slam-dunk that I am extremely puzzled as to why anyone, especially the media, would approach this with kid gloves. Oh, right, moral, well-considered reporting armed with tough questions designed to get at the actual truth and not some sanitized political truth went out with Reagan. Mea culpa.
"I.F. Stone used to joke that what passed for investigative journalism in Washington was actually just the restating of what was already in the public record at the appropriate time."
The only thing funny about it is that a lot of people don't think it is true.
I don't think it's true, I think it's giving too much credit to Washington journalists. Democracy Now is primarily based on public record, and it does a bang-up job.
Good analysis by Nichols. I remember having read the earlier article he linked to.
If Pelosi is innocent, she would do just as Mr. Nichols suggests--come clean under oath and on the public record.
Sadly, the reason that there will be no real investigation and no trials for these war criminals who bankrupted our nation and destroyed our credibility amongst the nations of the world is that, unfortunately, both party's leaderships are all bottom feeders sucking from the same cesspool.
The Democratic "leadership" in Washington has been as deeply involved with our wars and their attendant MIC profits as have the Republicans. A genuine investigation would prove what We the People have known for a long time and, therefore, we shall only be issued sanitized horsefeathers and the incident will be closed. The empire will march on until it is destroyed by its own internal rot, as the Roman Empire and many others have done over the centuries and millenia. Sadly, they all add to the huge mountain of skulls they leave behind.
"... it is likely that [Pelosi] will be a bit player in this drama."
Mr. Nichols knows that Pelosi is the one who kept impeachment "off the table", and unless he's a complete fool, he understands that she didn't need to be briefed to know what the rest of us knew from reading the news: that our government was imprisoning people without charge and torturing many of them. This article is just another disingenuous, ass-kissing apologetic. CD should warn readers who have recently eaten to avoid these articles.
Timelines and details matter here. Let us not shoot too recklessly from the hip.
According to our own spooks' summary, Porter Goss and Nancy Pelosi (then, the GOP majority and Dem minority senior members of the House Intelligence Committee) were jointly briefed on September 4, 2002 by the CIA about the Bushies' euphemistically rebranded torture tactics henceforth known as "enhanced interrogation techniques". According to the CIA's declassified summary of this single session, the two legislators receiving this highly classified Congressional oversight briefing were also told there was a high value al Qaeda detainee being held overseas in CIA custody (Zubaydah), who was about to be interrogated using the new EIT methods because the lawyers were signing off, thus assuring everybody that everything was legal.
Nancy Pelosi was never briefed in any of the 39 subsequent CIA oversight briefings that involved detainee interrogation policies. She was briefed once. Period. Not even Porter Goss, her Repub colleague present at this single 9/4/02 oversight security briefing - a career spy, elected to the House from Florida after leaving the company, and who later was appointed by George W. Bush to replace George Tenet as head of the CIA - not even Goss claims that he and Congresswoman Pelosi were told that Zubaydah had already been waterboarded over fifty times.
Dana Priest of the Washington Post first broke the news about the existence of CIA black sites where torture might be taking place in a major investigative piece published on December 26, 2002. The Abu Ghraib photo scandal did not break into the public domain in all its glory until March, 2004, around the same time that the first (of what turned out to be many) internal investigative reports concerning possible torture of detainees held in US military custody (General Taguba's report) was made public.
Yet your post (like many other comments here at CD and elsewhere on the net recently) declares of Pelosi "she didn't need to be briefed to know what the rest of us knew from reading the news: that our government was imprisoning people without charge and torturing many of them."
Proof, please.
Show me where, in September, 2002, there was one shred of evidence in published news accounts that the Bushies were torturing people.
True, the grand opening of Gitmo in early 2002 was a very, very public PR stunt, high lighting the global warehousing of GWOT detainees without charges.
But proof, please.
Show me where any time before late December, 2002, there was any news coverage anywhere about the Bush regime's secret embrace of torture as official US government policy.
Rather than attacking John Nichols as a "disingenuous, ass kissing" apologist, you might want to consider how you are being duped to join in a circular firing squad with the Speaker of the House standing in the middle. Nichols is right. At the very worst, knowing now what nobody knew back then unless you held the highest of high security clearance, Nancy Pelosi was at best a bit player.
Who benefits from diverting public anger about torture away from the actual criminals, and focusing the media's self righteous scrutiny upon claims of bipartisan complicity on the part of Speaker of the House Pelosi in enabling George Bush's torture policies?
The CIA benefits.
And the neo-con Bush legacy wing of the GOP (guys like Dick Cheney and Peter Hoekstra) benefits.
That's who.
Just because our spooks are trying to spook Nancy Pelosi shouldn't spook conscientious citizens like you into joining their blood stained parade.
Facts and timeline, please.
Bill from Saginaw
You wrote: "Yet your post (like many other comments here at CD and elsewhere on the net recently) declares of Pelosi 'she didn't need to be briefed to know what the rest of us knew from reading the news: that our government was imprisoning people without charge and torturing many of them.' Proof, please."
Proof of what? That there was a steady stream of articles and books that appeared during the time of the Bush administration describing our government's torture policies? That's obvious to anyone who read the news. Here are a few examples from a long list:
"Torture at Abu Ghraib" by Seymour M. Hersh, The New Yorker (May 10, 2004)
"Oath Betrayed: Torture, Medical Complicity, and the War on Terror", by Steven Miles (June 2006)
"To be free from this cage", in Bookforum, volume 13, issue 2 (June/July/August 2006)
Yet Pelosi protected Bush right up to the time that Obama took over. With all due respect, the idea that she was unaware of what our government was doing is preposterous.
You also wrote: "Show me where, in September, 2002, there was one shred of evidence in published news accounts that the Bushies were torturing people." Why focus on 2002? As I said, Pelosi protected Bush during his entire time in office, long past the time when it was obvious that our government was torturing people.
"... you might want to consider how you are being duped to join in a circular firing squad ..." I made the simple point that Pelosi's actions should not be excused. That doesn't imply that I think we should divert our attention away from those who planned, authorized, committed, and helped to cover up torture. My anger has not been diverted "away from the actual criminals." It's not at all clear to me why you attribute that belief to me.
Bill doesn't get it. It's not our role in CD forums to dispense justice, so accuracy here is quite irrelevant. What matters here is that we raise enough hell to hopefully contribute some bit of momentum toward investigations and prosecutions that answer the questions and dispense the justice. 3/4 of the kaka spewed out of Washing-town is decoy red herring gibberish anyhow. So, handle it accordingly. As you can see, we have quite a refined strategy here. Let the kaka fly.
The techniques used in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are spelled out in detail in this declassified document from 1963:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB122
One of the "good" things about Bush is that he did loudly and brazenly what both parties have been doing secretively for years and years. He raised public awareness of things like torture and imperial foreign policy and class war in a way that we activists have been trying to do for a long time.
Waterboard them all. Repeatedly. Maybe then, they'll tell the truth for once. And then hang their sadistic asses for crimes against humanity. Otherwise, what Cheney said will be true forever, "the American way of life is non-negotiable".
We either negotiate a new form of government, OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, AND FOR THE PEOPLE or we hand the keys permanently to criminals.
"Waterboard them all. Repeatedly."
Your anger is understandable, but torturing torturers because you detest torture is not a good solution.
Was Stone joking?
Let's put Pelosi on the rack -- just make it a figurative one, not literal.
Hey, why be shy? The proposition here is to question her, possibly subpoena her, conceivably prosecute her under due process should something prosecutable arise, right? We're not suggesting that agents seize her, drag her to an undisclosed location and waterboard her.
Incumbent Dems may find it a good percentage bet to avoid prosecution even though most of the convictions and bad publicity would surely fall on republicans in this case, but that's a lousy reason for the rest of us to back off on this.
How much would it hurt to have to replace a few torturing incumbents? Que se vayan todos never sounded better.
It remains to be seen if the NYT continues on the path to full exposure of this ruling-elite 'corporate financial Empire' which now fully controls our country by hiding behidn the facade of its two-party 'Vichy' sham of democracy, or whether the NYT halts its truth telling at the border of the Democratic Party --- and refuses to indict the Democrats in this Empire project.
WSWS, of course has continued to provide a no-holds-barred indictment of the entire "two-party Vichy" scam of Empire, as demonstrated in their further exposure of the cancer of Empire this morning by Alex Lantier:
"Far from being an accidental or excessive byproduct, torture was an essential component in creating the web of lies and disinformation that allowed these wars to proceed. New York Times columnist Frank Rich made a correct point in a commentary published on Sunday, noting that a major factor in the 2002 decision to torture captured Al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah was the Bush administration's need to manufacture false evidence of links between Al Qaeda and Iraq.
Rich noted that the Bush administration had a "ticking timetable for selling a war in Iraq." He cited a Senate Armed Services Committee report released last week in which army psychiatrist Maj. Paul Burney, who was overseeing interrogations at Guantánamo Bay, said, "A large part of the time, we were focused on trying to establish a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, and we were not being successful." Burney said high-level officials were "frustrated" at this situation, and interrogators felt "more and more pressure to resort to measures" that would produce the desired evidence.
As in the times of the Spanish Inquisition and of Stalin’s henchmen, the purpose of this torture was to force victims to produce politically useful lies. In this case, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld wanted to claim that there was a risk that Iraq might give weapons of mass destruction to Al Qaeda, so as to justify their illegal invasion of Iraq."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/apr2009/pers-a27.shtml
There can be no half-way measures regarding the cancer of Empire which has taken over our government, just as there could be no half-way, 'expedient arrangements' by our founding fathers in coming to any supposed settlement with the British Empire which earlier controlled our country and would have prevented the birth of our democracy via infanticide.
To allow Empire to kill democracy can never be allowed in this "last best hope of the world" (as Lincoln characterized America).
Our founding fathers did not pragmatically, or bipartisanly 'triangulate' with Empire at the birth of this democratic Republic (like a weak-kneed Bill Clinton).
Nor did FDR accommodate an 'arrangement' with the fascist, industrial power of the Nazi Empire that had taken over Germany, despite the schemes of Bush's great grandfather and other leading corporatists.
Nor did Ike or JFK compromise with the Stalinist/Soviet Empire, despite the very real "existential threat" (which Ms. Clinton, Cheney, Netanyahu, and other media liars now conflate with the phony threat of Iran's "non-bomb" threat).
No, there can be no compromising with any Empire --- including the Empire that now controls our country.
No, Mr. Reagan, the Soviet Empire was not the only "Evil Empire" (all empires are evil, you dolt).
The only true 'existential threat' to the world is the threat of Empire, in its attempt to kill off democracy --- and that real threat is so great to our country, our children, our values, and our very souls that no quarter must be given to either of these empire-enabling 'Vichy' parties --- the Republican nor the Democrats --- who have both aided and abetted Empire in its attempted destruction of our democracy.
Which is why the harsh reality of the WSWS's recommendations is the only media voice I have yet seen calling for unflinching deracination of both these jaded pro-empire 'Vichy' shams of real democracy.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Sioux Rose
ALAN: Compelling post, thank you for sharing it.
“You can’t handle the truth!”
From WSWS’s Bill Van Auken on Torture Acknowledgment and Prosecution:
(The) “recent report issued by the Senate Armed Services Committee confirmed, a major aim of the torture was not to uncover intelligence about an imminent act of terrorism, but to extract confessions of ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein in order to bolster one of the Bush administration’s phony pretexts for a war of aggression against Iraq.”
“The failure of the Obama administration to initiate such an investigation and its cowering before the CIA and the rest of the national security apparatus only confirms that there exists no real constituency within any section of the US ruling elite for the defense of democratic rights.”
“Moreover, the Obama administration, like its predecessor, is committed to upholding the interests of a financial oligarchy at the expense of the broad mass of working people in the US and around the world. This cannot be achieved by democratic means. It requires a continuation of the policy of aggressive war abroad—with the administration’s military escalation in Afghanistan and Pakistan—and a continuation of the assault on basic democratic rights at home.
The fight to put an end to wars of aggression, torture, extraordinary rendition and the other (war) crimes with which the US government is identified all over the world cannot be advanced without holding accountable those responsible for these practices.”
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/may2009/tort-m07.shtml
IMHO, No matter how loudly Obama (and the American people) may cry “Out, damn’d spot!” —- we will not be able to walk out of this tragedy alive until this most odious crime is expunged.
Alan MacDonald
The information I have from a credible source is that Pelosi's decision not to impeach was based on cutting a deal with the Bush White House. She and various members of her family were heavily implicated the shady land grab and public health disaster at Bayview Hunter's Point. The Bush White House agreed not to investigate her if she blocked impeachment.
Whatever her reasons, she had no constitutional authority to refuse to open an impeachment investigation. It was purely a personal/political decision and a serious dereliction of duty.
How much and when the CIA briefed Pelosi is irrelevant in assessing what she knew and when she knew it. There was solid information about the use of torture by the military and their adjuncts for years following the date of the first briefing.
For someone charged with the oversight of the Executive Branch of government Pelosi and all the other members of congress who were briefed showed a remarkable lack of curiousity about what the term "enhanced interrogation" might mean and a deliberate disinterest in following up credible reports of torture.
According to the Geneva Conventions, failure to do everything in ones power to stop a war crime when you are in a position to do so is a crime.
The crimes of the last administration are now bleeding into the new administraton. Obama is continuing Bush's illicit wars, restoring extra legal military commmissions and blocking movement on court cases and investigations. Every member of congress voted to fund these programs.
All three branches of government are involved.
It is going to be extremely difficult to get anyone presently in office to do the right thing.
What is needed is an independent panel to investigate and prosecute.
What we can't afford to do is call it a "mistake" and sweep it under the rug.
What all this proves is that folks will argue the minutia for years and years, thinking that they are contributing to solving the problems. Sorry that is the entire game plan get you talking and keep you talking for ever. Stop talking it solves nothing.It is time to resurrect the CONSTITUTION PEOPLE! The only thing that can save the USA is regaining the constitution and re-establishing the rule of law. Because as it stands we are a gang of vicious cowards and cut throats lead by an extreme war criminal and COWARD and we are just as bad if we don't do something!
Bring America Back !!!!...If we look backward, we shall see Pelosi at Nurenburg as a defendant, just as Bush and Cheney !
***That's why Obama wants to look ahead only !
***So many Dems were and are enablers and co=conspirators in the Bush War Crimes that there can be no effective and independent investigation. No Truth Commission appointed by Congress will work !! The system of checks and balances intended by the forefathers in our Constitution has been
busted.
***Only an International Court of Justice and Reform, with total powers of inquiry and resolution will work !
***And, it did not start with Torture, it started with 9/11, and the Atrocious Truth of that Infamous Day has yet to see the Sunshine !!!!
Well said TruthKnoller,
The legislative and judicial branches may have been placed under a gag order early post 9/11 in the Patriot Act days of circumventing the Constitution.
That said, from 2002 to 2005 the country was brainwashed into " supporting the troops" or suffer your anti-American consequences.
Pro-patriot brainwashing has war protesters calling themselves peace activists.
Cheney made a huge error questioning General Powells political position on supporting President Obama.
The Bush/Cheney doctrine has elevated our military leaders and soldiers in the public eye as being more important that any other citizen in the USA.
That way, if you question or disagree with the war, you are disrespecting our valiant and brave military.
And , since the military serves to protect America by putting their lives on the line, Dick Cheney has now self branded himself as anti-patriotic by slamming General Powell with his remarks.
Well Dick , you and Karl Rove created this mess, and now, the rest of us real patriots using protests and the media have to rally Americas intellectual community and legal scholars to correct the treason's put into law by your Patriot Acts.
Both Democrats and Republicans in the legislature along with the Judicial branch failed to protect the Constitution of our country.
The argument was that because we were dealing with an unconventional enemy we needed to use unconstitutional methods.
Hogwash. The sheer genius of our founding fathers is unquestionable. And we now know exactly why the constitution must be protected from enemy's foreign and domestic.
Born Free Men
Gang stalking torture victim of right wing religious lunatics acting as community watch patriots. 2.5 years and running.
When I get to Heaven , I hope God gives me the clip board and list of entrants at the pearly gates because payback is a bitch.
A new ABC poll shows that a majority of Americans favor investigating whether Bush administration officials broke the law regarding torture. An independent investigation would reaffirm the basic American principle that no one is above the law.
Join GreenChange.org in calling on Attorney General Holder to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate whether Bush administration officials violated laws prohibiting torture:
http://tinyurl.com/NoMoreTorture
(Here's something I tried to post on the UK's Independent email edition today under an article about an 89 year old Nazi war criminal being brought to justice recently. I was unable to post this comment, and as there were no other comments posted, I assume no one else was able to post under this article... though there were the usual number of comments under other articles in today's edition and I commented on others as well.)
What? No comments on this story allowed? Frightened that someone might ask if this is the way the last trial of the neocons will look.... an elderly and/or infirm John Yoo or George W strapped to a gurney on their way to be judged for crimes against humanity? Elderly Blackwater executives and CIA operatives finally brought to justice by a formerly cowed international community that claimed to have no time to bring to trial the instigators of widescale torture, violent kidnapping and imprisonment for years without charges or access to legal assistance or habeas corpus? Phosphorous weapons and wholesale massacre of civilians? Finally bringing the international criminals to justice because their kind of law breaking, unchecked by the biggest powers, is implied consent for others to do the same and the world threatens, among all its other life-on-earth threatening problems, to devolve to anarchy of guns, bombs, kidnapping and massacre made implicitly legal? Go figure.
Both Pelosi and Obama should volunteer to testify before Congress on what briefing they received regarding torture. That would allow Congress to call Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, et al on the same subject.
Why the stupid Democrats keep allowing the Republicans to drive this non-debate is beyond me. But then again, why this country allowed torture as official policy is also beyond me. We are the Nazis we fought against. The Republicans did the Nazi tactics. The Democrats have decided to cover it up.
Signed: Lawlessone [for more irreverence, see resistence-is-possible.blogspot.com]