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). Read on…
No Trackbacks To “Could Congress Have Spoken Out On Waterboarding?“
Would Jesus have kept his Mouth shut? Or would he go tell it on the mountain?
Glenn Greenwald has been ripping the leading Dems (especially Rockefeller) on this.
Oh, but you don’t UNDERSTAND! I can see how a naive, irrational, puritanical so-called “independent” voter might think of this as the Democratic party actually covering up naked criminality, but what you don’t understand is that if the Democrats had spoken out about this at the time, the Republicans would have made fun of them and then the Democrats might have lost some votes in the next election.
See, we sophisticated voters who REALLY CARE about getting good work done understand that the only thing, the only thing, that matters is electing more Democrats.
Besides, the Republicans would have just blocked any effort to ban waterboarding, so putting any such objection on the table would only have “stunt value.” Other than that, it would have been a total waste of time to make any effort to get the facts on the record before the American people.
Starting to see it now, Dems? Starting to see it?
You’re in bed with evil. You know it. The fact that the other guys are more enthusiastic about being evil doesn’t mean you’re not in bed with evil.
Thank You C&L. Let’s hold these people accountable.
Weren’t they just briefed? I thought they weren’t allowed to even ask questions. That GW’s crew came in and read to them and they had to sit there and shut up.
Not an excuse, that thought that they would allow themselves to be treated this way, and us through them, is pathetic. reprehensible. The fact that the repugs were in charge and had the dems hands ties is appalling, and forgotten.
Well the publicans were in control of congress, and more than likely they were all sworn to secrecy. Any breach of that oath could have them facing charges of impeachment and considering the period treason.
Meanwhile booshco goes merrily along.
Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley said today that a crime or criminal activity cannot qualify as a State Secret. The entire responsibility of the Intelligence Committees is to provide oversight. If they see something illegal, they are required to speak up about it and no one can prosecute them for revealing something that they were sworn to secrecy about.
The secrecy provision is no longer binding if the subject of the disclosure is to report a crime.
Could of, would of, should of ………
Doesn’t matter, what was done and is being done is what matters, we know they are guilty to the rotten core of inaction, they were voted in to do it.
ysbaddaden @ 6:
Exactly. You can get in trouble for standing up for what is right.
Who wants to make a sacrifice for a country that doesn’t give a crap that it is goign down the toilet? Ooooh Britney!
Would Patrick Henry be as enthusiastic today as he was in his time? I doubt it.
They could have objected in the same way Sen. Rockefeller did to the wiretapping…. He signed a classified memo and put it in a safe (for all the good that did….)
The values voters and the religious right have broken our moral compass.
The MSM would have butchered any dems that disclosed any information. Remember, they are corporate media. It would have killed dems of any chance of ever gaining control. Think about who is the real enemy.
My mind is still trying to deal with all this.
I have always believed that BOTH parties are responsible for this horrible failure in leadership. Fuck the Republicans, we know what they are. The democratic leadership Nancy, Harry, etc. have totally failed us. They laid down like five dollar meth whores.
The Dems could have spoken up if they had decency and courage. They have neither.
Could they have been prosecuted for revealing “state secrets” (crimes committed by the government that they want hidden?) Sure. And now they should be prosecuted for participating in a coverup.
Ron@12 So you condone leaders being cowards? You have low self-esteem.
Looks like Nancy Pelosi is on the list of those who kept their mouth shut as well…
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/....._1209.html
I’m all for Cindy Sheehan taking her place in Congress.. http://www.cindyforcongress.org/
We have taken refuge in euphemisms. “Enhanced,” sometimes “aggressive” interrogation techniques—or, the latest offering of a CIA spokesman, “special methods of questioning”—are, deliberately, verbal anesthetic. In the wake of the last great war to save civilization, George Orwell taught us to distrust euphemisms. Always and without exception, they are designed to dull us to the truth. Those CIA videos would have stripped anyone who saw them of that comfortable distancing—confronted everyone who viewed them with the unimaginable reality of what the U.S. government has authorized in our name.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/75104
Destroying these tapes was a coverup. No doubt about it. Somewhere somehow it would have been leaked. No way could they have that tape out there proving “we don’t torture” bush a liar.
BTW Scooter must have gotten the thumbs up for his pardon. Why else does he all of the sudden decide he doesn’t need to appeal his case? All of the sudden it doesn’t matter that he was “unfairly” convicted? Yeah right.
Left&Left @ 16:
unnecessary. if he had low self-esteem he wouldn’t have said anything. be decent.
I hate to (in part) repost, but this is more germane to this thread than the one it was originally posted in:
The neocons may be the prime movers of this sort of behavior - but the dems were more than along for the ride. The dems have failed us - again. Look at their track record: no withdrawal from Iraq/no meaningful oversite or hearings into illegal eavesdropping or torture/ trying to give telecoms amnesty as a cover-up, etc. Progressives in this country have no representation.
The bottom line is that most of them (not all) are spineless little politicos, and the coddling they receive from the progressive electorate is exactly what we don’t need.
Our “representatives” were and are total cowards. They have betrayed this country, they have betrayed us. They share the guilt. We have been betrayed by those we elected to defend and protect the Constitution.
There is enough guilt to go around. As Martin Luther King said “we will not only be remembered by the words we speak, but also by our silence when we should have spoken.” The cowards should have spoken up for the good of THEIR country, for the good of OUR country.
pissed off patricia @ 13:
Well hurry up Patricia. We need you on the front lines of taking our country back!!! ASAP :)
Okay, suppose for a moment that their “hands were tied” and there was “nothing they could do.”
Are you satisfied with that? Are you satisfied supporting a political party that, time and time again, finds themselves with their hands tied on matters of fundamental human rights?
If you’re going to support a powerless, impotent, ineffective party, shouldn’t you support one that’s powerless, impotent and ineffective because they HAVEN’T been elected to high office?
How many excuses are you ready to accept? How much further down the rabbit hole will you go? How many more apologies are you willing to make for people who are…
…NOT DOING WHAT YOU ELECTED THEM TO DO?
And if the answer is more and more and more and more and more until no Republican draws breath, then let me ask, on what basis do you smirk at the fundies who consistently get half a loaf from the Republicans on their real core agenda? What fools are they compared with you?
Suckers.
There should be a kitten/puppy test for these people.
If it simulated drowning is “okay” for people, no doubt every politician will claim to own ONLY goldfish.
And why is it that the Democrats always find themselves with their hands tied?
When the Republicans had power, there was “nothing they could do” even though they had 40 senators the way the Republicans do now.
Now that they have power, there’s “nothing they can do” because the Republicans have 40 senators, the way the Democrats did back when there was “nothing they could do.”
What if, and I’m just spitballing here, but what if this “there’s nothing we can do” excuse, which seems to slip and slide all over the power map and always seems to land on double-zero for the Dems no matter WHAT the outcome, is just a lie lie lie lie lie used to keep you trapped so you will keep voting for an impotent party and not create a, heaven forbid, REAL progressive movement in this country.
Suppose that were true. How would life be different than it is today, where clearly that isn’t true.
Clearly the Democratic party stands and fights for progressive values in this country.
Clearly they do.
But what if they weren’t? What would that seem like?
And here come Paul in LA to defend his mistress in 3..2..1..
Wasn’t Harmon the one thrown under the bus by Pelosi when it came time to appoint intel committee chair? If so, they are said to hate each other, and I always wondered why. Don’t know for certain whether this has anything to do with it, but it sure adds some context.
Seems to me Nancy is conflicted out by this and needs to go. “Impeachment is off the table” indeed.
“We do not torture.” GW Bush, Signing Statement: “MUCH”.
Oh so NOW the Constitution is important? The Constitution protects those in Congress if they speak?
Um, as far as I can tell, NOBODY (except one) in Congress is following the Constitution. Everyone (except one) has wiped their ass with it at some point in time.
Democrats and Republicans (except one) have all, at least once, violated the Constitution at some time or another.
If the Consitution is supposed to be followed, it must be followed to a tee. If it isn’t, then the argument that whistleblowers are to be protected by the Constitution is MOOT and IRRELEVENT.
You can’t cherry pick what is in it, because then it becomes subjective, and then anyone could later on come up with a reason why another part should be violated.
I’m sorry, but we can’t say that the Constitution will protect these members of Congress. They are not protected because the current Congress is not upholding the Constitution at all.
they were set up…..with their hands tied behind their back…..then at a time of their choosing they leak the info…..this isn’t the first time they’ve pulled this move….this is how the repugs work.
Dude @ 28:
Amen Dude
These Francoists need to be stopped. Our party’s afraid of corporate donors and the “serious” beltway bumpkins to stop the giggling murderer
Dude @ 28:
Sure you can. Democratic party loyalists on this very board have argued that the ONLY important issue is getting more Democrats elected.
If defending the constitution means hurting Democratic electoral chances, then the electoral concerns trump, period.
That’s what comes of believing that the power game is more important than the exercise of that power.
It’s the same argument Bush uses to destroy the constitution in his hunt for “the terrorists.”
It’s wrong when he uses it and it’s wrong when liberals use it.
Orangutan. @ 22:
pissed off patricia will never make it to the front line… until she quits payin her income tax. as it is now she is giving her money to support this kind of illegal war/police state torture shit we are seein right now.
yeah…the front line is a little further up…. keep comin…I’ll be waitin’
The Democrats are nothing more than modern day whigs.
So, let us be clear: if you vote for a Democrat, you are supporting a political party which is actively seeking to subvert the constitution of the United States of America by action and inaction.
Refute.
Orangutan. @ 17:
Has anyone on this site, besides me, actually read the entire “Discourse.Net” posting
as highlighted in blue above(lead-in); including the Blogger’s who have posted their
comments? This is not a black and white issue, but has many shades of gray, so before
we jump the gun and assume that Nancy or any of the others reportedly attending the
CIA briefing are incompetent by their silence, a person should read the entire Dioscourse Article.
JasonS @ 36:
Democrats voted for the patriot act…shall I continue?
So, may we now safely dispense with all this “the Democrats aren’t as bad as the Republicans” nonsense?
It may well be that one odious political party is “not as bad” as another, but that’s hardly a recommendation for my most precious vote, which I guard jealously.
An alcoholic may not be as bad a a chronic gambler, but you shouldn’t marry either without knowing what you’re getting into.
ABC has the exclusive interview of a CIA agent who captured and tortured Abu Zubayda. So much for the excuse of keeping indentities of covert operatives secret.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/.....amp;page=1
JasonS @ 36:
allow me to continue,
Ummm, here is a dastardly little law… voted for (unanimously) by house democrats just recently!http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/061207_b_wifi.htm
shall I continue? …this is too easy…
So, a vote for a Democrat is a vote for a Republican. If you don’t vote for some other party or independent candidate, you’re just helping the Republicans.
Voting for a Democrat is worse than “throwing your vote away” on a third party. At least when you “throw your vote away” on the Greens or Libertarians or whoever, you’re not actively giving support to someone who will then go to Washington and betray you.
So, in ‘08, THE LEAST you can do is throw your vote away. Anything else is just supporting evil.
JasonS @ 25:
You know, you can’t win at plunko on the Price is Right either.
JasonS @ 3:
Yep, I think you’ve pretty much captured it.
wmholt @ 7:
I was thinking the same thing. They should have no legal problem exposing classified information if it is a crime. Torture is a crime, but even more clear, I heard that they were informed that the videotapes would be destroyed. That would absolutely be a crime.
I want to know who knew what, and I wa