HuffPo: What, Exactly, Was Pelosi Supposed To Do?

[bottomtheweaver]

By Chris Weigant
Posted: May 18, 2009 07:39 PM:

"Listening to the news over the past week, it would be easy to come to the conclusion that Nancy Pelosi was personally responsible for torturing prisoners. Because that's how the storyline seemed, if you had just beamed in from Mars and didn't know anything else about the debate on prisoner interrogation. The problem is, we have not just arrived on this planet, and Nancy Pelosi will ultimately wind up in the history books with a footnote (if that) in the description of what took place under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. But her critics in the past few days have remarkably failed to answer a very basic question (not that the media is really asking, but maybe they'll get around to it) -- what, exactly, was Nancy Pelosi supposed to do?

(snip)

"Let's review a few facts, and then lay out the possible courses of action for Pelosi at the time. The Central Intelligence Agency is, by law, required to brief certain members of Congress on covert activities. This is a safeguard put in place since the abuses of the agency came to light in the 1970s. The CIA is required to brief not only the White House, but also the Speaker of the House, the House Minority Leader, the Senate Majority Leader, the Senate Minority Leader, and the ranking minority and majority members of both houses' intelligence committees. These eight members of Congress -- four from each party -- are given secret briefings by the CIA to inform Congress what is being done in the American peoples' name.

(snip)

"This was classified information given in a secret briefing. It's hard to get around that fact, which is why almost all of the news stories on Pelosi in the past week have completely avoided even mentioning it. It makes for a better storyline without pointing out this fact, so it is conveniently omitted.

"Pelosi's hands were tied. She could not go public. She could not leak the story. At least not without breaking the law. She could have sent a letter to Bush, which would have achieved exactly nothing, except to provide her with a political "out" later on. For her own reasons, she did not do so."

link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/what-exactly-was-pelosi-s_b_204953.html
.............................

He has a point, which makes the Pelosi ploy and the ink being lavished on it in the press ridiculous as well as pointless. Inicidentally in her press conference on Thursday, she DID make mention of a letter that was sent to Bush, although she didn't say who wrote it. In any case, she came out swinging at the CIA, and I hope she's got the stomach for a good fight because she's going to get very little help from her colleagues on this one.

[LakeSamish706]

1. Well for starters she could have documented her disagreement of the situation...

and left it in Public records for all to witness at a later date. Apparently Rockefeller did this as did some others that were not comfortable with the torture issue.

[obliviously]

3. Good idea! N/T

[waiting for hope]

2. I don't agree with the last sentence -

I think Bob Graham's notebooks are helping her very much.....;)

[obliviously]

4. How? N/T

[bottomtheweaver]

6. Yes, Graham is the exception, but he's retired.

I think the phrase from the WH was "they didn't return the RSVP," meaning they're letting her twist in the wind until she either recants and grovels before the CIA or gets flattened. I'm hoping she fights back with both barrels instead, but it's going to be a lonely fight.

[TwilightZone]

5. Jane Harman sent the letter.

In February 2003:

The next day, Feb. 5, 2003, Harman received a similar briefing as Pelosi's replacement as the top House intelligence committee Democrat.

Harman was surprised at what she learned, particularly that intelligence officials had video of the waterboarding of Abu Zubaida and were planning on destroying it. Captured in early 2002, Abu Zubaida, whose real name is Zayn al-Abidin Muhammed Hussein, faced months of standard interrogations before being sent to a CIA-run facility where the harsher techniques were used.

Harman wrote to the CIA's general counsel on Feb. 10, 2003, to question whether the methods "are consistent with the principles and policies of the United States. Have enhanced techniques been authorized and approved by the president?"

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/08/AR2009050803967_2.html?hpid=topnews

Another thread indicated that she sent another letter that month objecting to the torture program. Don't remember which thread, however.

Edit: typo

[bottomtheweaver]

7. It sounds like she got a different briefing.

Pelosi didn't say anything about a video.

[TwilightZone]

9. Correct.

Harman's briefing was in Feb. 2003. Pelosi's was in Sept. 2002.

[bottomtheweaver]

12. You mean Harmon sent the letter Pelosi was talking about?

That makes sense. I didn't follow at first.

[TwilightZone]

15. Yes.

I'm sure that's the one Pelosi is talking about.

[bottomtheweaver]

19. Okay that would seem to give her some cover then wouldn't it,

since Harmon was on the committee at the time, not Pelosi. I know it's pretty lame but it seems like a valid defense.

[TwilightZone]

23. Well, it certainly proves that Pelosi is right about one thing.

Pelosi has stated that objecting to the torture program through channels wouldn't have accomplished much of anything because the Bush admin didn't care what anyone else thought. They were going to proceed regardless.

Harman did, in fact, object via the letter and got nowhere.

[malaise]

10. Was that before they started wiretapping her

I can't wait for all these dots to be connected.

[TwilightZone]

14. Before.

The wiretapping was supposedly in 2005 or 2006.

[noamnety]

8. This article is a bunch of crap.

The author needs to study history. He should start with the Pentagon Papers.

I am more than fed up with people pretending there is nothing that officials can do when they become aware of a war crime being committed by our government. "Their hands were tied - they were practically victims themselves." Bullshit.

Many of our Iraq veterans opted to spend time in jail and accept dishonorable discharges because they knew right from wrong and understood the concept of integrity. It is sickening that they have more courage than our elected officials who actually have an avenue for doing what's right that doesn't involve spending time in federal prison.

Pelosi weighed her privilege with her moral integrity, and we all know which one she decided was worth more.

[bottomtheweaver]

11. Okay so how does that work out practically?

She should have gone to prison? I agree with you morally but she's a politician not a professor.

[noamnety]

13. Please review the Pentagon Papers.

Daniel Ellsberg, and Mike Gravel - who did EXACTLY what Pelosi should have done.

History is a great thing to learn from.

[bottomtheweaver]

16. Okay, but what are you suggesting she should have done,

in practical terms?

[noamnety]

17. What did Mike Gravel do?

therein lies your answer.

[bottomtheweaver]

18. I don't know. What?

Sorry, don't know much about Gravel.

[noamnety]

22. The reaons Gravel was a true hero to those on the left

is that when he was faced with evidence of the US committing war crimes, he did not wring his hands, send a sternly worded memo about it, consider his responsibility done, and spend the next year weasel wording excuses about why he "couldn't" have done anything about it.

Quoting from a previous post of mine:
"Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution: "for any speech or debate in either House, they {a Senator or Representative} shall not be questioned in any other place."

The historical significance of this: it was the reason the Supreme Court ruled that Mike Gravel could not be prosecuted for entering the classified Pentagon Papers into the Senate Record. (Gravel vs. The United States Government). This was instrumental in letting the public know JFK's illegal involvement in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, and was critical in ending the Vietnam War. (It's noteworthy that Gravel did not withhold the information from the American public for the sake of protecting other democrats, no matter how high up they were - he did what was morally right, not what was politically expedient for party reelections.)

--------------
There ARE some elected officials who know right from wrong and have enough personal integrity to do everything they can to end international war crimes. Pelosi is not one of those officials.

What the hell ... you know? She allowed hundreds of people to be tortured because she was afraid to enter something into the congressional record? She should be impeached for that.

[bottomtheweaver]

26. Okay. So he entered some docs blaming JFK for Vietnam into the record

and didn't get busted, what a shock. I know, I know, it's complicated, but anything concerning the CIA is creepy cloudy and complicated and I don't know too much about Gravel so I guess I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt on that one.

Anyway, you're suggesting Pelosi should have entered docs into the record? Which ones?

[noamnety]

29. I think you misworded that.

The point isn't that he entered "some docs blaming JFK for Vietnam."

I REALLY think you should read up on the history of that. The issue wasn't him "blaming JKF."

The issue was that the US govt was involved in illegal activities/illegal invasions, etc. and he acted as whistleblower by entering that into the congressional record.

I am suggesting that Pelosi should have entered into the public record a statement that she was aware that the justice department had authorized torture, which is a violation of international law. If she was also briefed that the torture was already ongoing, that too should have been entered.

Go back and read my posts - she did not need to have "documents" in her hand to read into the record.

[bottomtheweaver]

32. What exactly was she supposed to read?

I'm just curious what you have in mind, because to judge from her statements so far, the CIA told her very damn little, which seems perfectly credible to me, and swore her to secrecy on top of it.

[noamnety]

36. Why are you fixated on the idea of "reading documents"?

""for any speech or debate in either House, they {a Senator or Representative} shall not be questioned in any other place"

[TwilightZone]

28. Considering the Bush Administration's view of the Constitution...

the presumption that Pelosi would have been treated in the same manner as Gravel is a tenuous one, at best.

Just curious - why are you not calling for Jane Harman's head, as well? If the various reports are to be believed, she received more information in her briefing in early 2003 than Pelosi received in hers in late 2002. Harman sent a request for more information to the Bush Administration, received nothing, but took it no further.

It's been confirmed that she knew about the waterboarding (hence, her letter), while the jury is still out (you may disagree) on whether Pelosi was aware of it at the time of her briefing.

Based on the same logic, why aren't you going after Harman?

Edit: typos

[noamnety]

31. We should all be going after both of them.

Anyone who was aware we were authorizing/committing war crimes should be held accountable for how they handled that information.

This was a thread about Pelosi and what she should have done, therefore in this thread I am discussing Pelosi and what she should have done.

[TwilightZone]

33. Nobody is going after Harman.

See, that's what makes this argument so curious, especially here on DU.

EVERYONE who is making this argument is going after Pelosi for this, and no one is going after Harman. I have yet to see a single thread or post calling for Harman's head, and yet there are hundreds asking for Pelosi's.

Pelosi might have known about waterboarding. Harman *definitely* did. She confirmed it herself.

And yet Pelosi is the target.

Curious.

[tritsofme]

38. Pelosi presumably knew everything Harmon knew. Harmon was part of the "gang of eight" at the same

time as Pelosi.

Even though she was no longer on the intelligence committee, she still received the briefings as minority leader, and then Speaker.

I think that the fact that Pelosi has known for longer, as well as the fact that she is now Speaker of the House is why she is under greater scrutiny. Pelosi's head is worth more.

[TwilightZone]

40. Harman didn't learn of the waterboarding until after she replaced Pelosi on the committee.

It also doesn't appear that Pelosi was present at the briefing when Harman learned about the waterboarding.

The next day, Feb. 5, 2003, Harman received a similar briefing as Pelosi's replacement as the top House intelligence committee Democrat.

Harman was surprised at what she learned, particularly that intelligence officials had video of the waterboarding of Abu Zubaida and were planning on destroying it. Captured in early 2002, Abu Zubaida, whose real name is Zayn al-Abidin Muhammed Hussein, faced months of standard interrogations before being sent to a CIA-run facility where the harsher techniques were used.

Harman wrote to the CIA's general counsel on Feb. 10, 2003, to question whether the methods "are consistent with the principles and policies of the United States. Have enhanced techniques been authorized and approved by the president?"

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/08/AR2009050803967_2.html?hpid=topnews

So, if Harman and Pelosi both attended the briefing in 2002 (of that, I am unsure), and Harman is indicating that she didn't learn of the waterboarding until the Feb. 2003 meeting, then, assuming that she's being truthful, the 2002 briefing (the one that everyone is using to hang Pelosi) didn't include that information.

[tritsofme]

50. Harman didn't have access to the info until 2003, the beggining of the 108th Congress.

Harman couldn't have known contemporaneously what Pelosi learned in her earlier briefs.

That makes her timeline consistent, and why we still have controversy over what Pelosi learned in 2002.

[TwilightZone]

60. Pelosi and Hoekstra have asked for the summary of the 2002 briefing to be declassified.

Wouldn't that seem like an odd request if Pelosi is lying?

Honestly, I think the whole thing is idiotic. Bush/Cheney/et al are responsible. I just find it interesting that exactly the same logic can be used for everyone else in the room in Sept. 2002, yet Pelosi is the only one targeted, even by Democrats, *especially* by Democrats.

As you noted, she's a big target, so that's probably the best explanation.

[tritsofme]

66. It was my understanding that Pelosi and Hoekstra were briefed seperately.

I'm not positive on that.

But it really wouldn't surprise me if the CIA spooks told Hoekstra one thing, knowing he wouldn't give a shit, while softening the language toward Pelosi.

But either way, Pelosi remains the target, if for no other reason than they are all out of power today, while she remains two heart beats away from the presidency.

[TwilightZone]

68. I think you're right.

Hoekstra sent a lackey out to claim that he'd seen the summary of Pelosi's briefing, so apparently, he wasn't personally in attendance.

And, you're right - a briefing with Hoekstra and one with Pelosi could certainly have included different content.

[TwilightZone]

20. Considering that he didn't do it until March 2007...

I'm not sure how that's relevant.

Gravel's press release asking Congress to outlaw torture was issued 3/1/07. By then, the torture program was public knowledge.

On edit: sorry, I now realize that you were referencing his involvement re: the Pentagon Papers and not the torture program. My apologies.

[noamnety]

24. wrong history.

That's not what I'm talking about.

I am discouraged that he was running for president and people on DU didn't take the time to learn the basic facts about the role he played in history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

[TwilightZone]

25. I noted that earlier and edited my post.

Considering that this thread is about torture, I incorrectly presumed that you were referencing Gravel's 2007 request to Congress that they suspend the torture program, not his involvement in the Pentagon Papers.

[noamnety]

27. No problem.

I was pointing to the fact that there is a legal procedure for handling just this sort of thing - a member of congress acting as whistle blower, in effect.

[merh]

39. No, she would not have gone to prison.

Executive Order 12356

National Security Information

(skip)

Sec. 1.6 Limitations on Classification.

(a) In no case shall information be classified in order to conceal
violations of law, . . .

http://epic.org/open_gov/eo_12356.html

You cannot pass a law that authorizes the violation of the law or violations of the constitution.

They amended the torture laws in October of 2001 by adding the "conspiracy to torture" as a defined offense. They amended it when they passed The Patriot Act.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/merh/154

[Gregorian]

21. I was thinking of Ellsberg as well. I try to see both sides of this.

Not that one of the sides has any validity. And especially since I "knew" the Iraq invasion was phony.

However, the anthrax keeps coming back to me. And the World Trade Center disaster. I am trying to figure out whether she could have been questioning her own judgment. From the outside, we saw things with what I feel is perfect clarity. Even the anthrax. But being in Congress, and being briefed by multiple agencies, and not being absolutely certain what was really going on, perhaps she had doubts about ringing alarm bells. She had a lot to lose, personally.

I may be forgetting something crucial, and be completely full of it. And even though I have thought that impeachment could have been one avenue, this was a little before it might have been clear to people just how criminal those in the administration were. Why impeachment remained off the table is, however, a total mystery to me. And may lead to an answer.

I guess what I'm saying is that in the case of Watergate, crimes were known. In the case of Pelosi, I don't think she had clear cut violations of law.

[backscatter712]

30. I'll bet the anthrax may have something to do with it.

A bunch of Democrats and progressive journalists get weaponized anthrax as a Christmas gift in the mail. The person allegedly responsible wasn't caught for years, and when he was indicted, he conveniently kills himself, and law enforcement still doesn't have their story straight.

So tell me to go to the dungeon with this theory, but I have the feeling there was a lot of backroom threatening involved that may have something to do with Pelosi's silence.

[bridgit]

34. Yup, the weaponized anthrax was a particularly nefarious touch

[Skittles]

43. I agree with you, noamnety

absolutely - I think Pelosi behaved like a gutless coward

[L. Coyote]

46. Your post is a bunch of crap.

You are assuming the CIA made Pelosi "aware of a war crime being committed by our government" to use your words.

The issue is the CIA misled everyone to cover up the war crimes.

And, you insult our troops by using them as props in your deception!

[noamnety]

51. Pelosi has said she was aware that torture was authorized.

We can split hairs as to whether or not she was explicitly told is was already being used.

She should have taken the proper action when she knew it was being authorized by the justice department.

As for you accusing me of "insulting the troops" I have no idea what you are talking about. For the record, I AM the troops, or at least one of them.

[bottomtheweaver]

56. At which point she had Harman send the letter.

Here's a link to the transcript of her press conference:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/14/AR2009051402100.html

Pelosi says that when she was made aware that "certain techniques" were being used, a letter (Harman's) was sent to the White House.

Five months later, in February 2003, a member of my staff informed me that the Republican chairman and the Democratic ranking member of the Intelligence Committee had been briefed about the use of certain techniques which had been the subject of earlier legal opinions. Following that briefing, a letter raising concerns was sent to CIA general counsel, Scott Muller by the new Democratic ranking member of committee, the appropriate person to register a protest. But no letter could change the policy.

So, she acted.

[L. Coyote]

65. That is not true. Show us the quote! We are not fools, and this is total BS.

You want us to believe the CIA said to Pelosi, "We torture"? Get real and quit twisting the truth.

[noamnety]

67. Her quote:

"'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 notice you misrepresented what I said, which was that "she knew it was being authorized by the justice department", not that the CIA told Pelosi they were already torturing people - though a reasonable person might have been able to make that *massive* leap once they found out there was an action by the justice department to look into its legality.)

[L. Coyote]

69. You wrote "torture was authorized" and you know that isn't how it was presnted to Congress!

[bertman]

55. Noamnety, you are absolutely right. The other element of this is that Pelosi could have

gone public with the fact that she had a classified briefing whose content she would not divulge but said content lead her to believe that the Bush administration was going to do, or had already done, things which were illegal and should be stopped.

That statement would have raised enough of a media stink to at least put BushCo on notice that the Democrats were not going to be labeled as accomplices--willing or unwilling.

Instead, she did nothing. And now she's the most powerful Democrat in the House. A sad statement about our country.

[noamnety]

70. It's even worse than that.

I'd have preferred her doing nothing. Instead, she decided to keep voting to fund their operations. That pisses me off every bit as much as her covering up their crimes.

"I will not vote to fund this bill unless I have a signed document from the justice department and the president stating that these actions are illegal: ..."

Don't help fund war crimes. It's not rocket science.

[bigwillq]

35. Kept impeachment on the table.

:mad:

[merh]

37. The laws that make it illegal to disclose classified information

specifically provide that violations of the law cannot be concealed under the guise of "classified information".

She could have done something, if she knew we were torturing detainees and she should have done something.

[bottomtheweaver]

41. The problem is that the Justice department said they weren't illegal.

So she had no legal basis for deciding on her own that this info, once it was classified, was somehow illegal.

[merh]

45. The problem is, justice department cannot make such a legal

finding.

Only a court can make that call and she knows, or should have known, that there are laws against torture, the federal statutes, the geneva convention and the convention on torture, not to mention the 8th amendment.

She should have called for confidential hearings, filed an action with the federal courts for direction and/or injunction relief, done something, anything to prevent the torture.

So justice charges her, she gets a trial and it all comes out and the courts determine what those who read those memos determined, that they were a load of crap and that waterboarding is torture and torture is a crime.

Tell me, do you think the CIA can go in to the intelligence committee and tell them during a classified briefing "we are going to kill Joe Blow, he is a spy and a danger" and those attending the briefing are to just sit silent?

How far can the CIA go under the cover of "classified" - can they break the law and are members of commerce just supposed to forget their oaths of office?

[bottomtheweaver]

47. You're kidding, right?

"So justice charges her, she gets a trial and it all comes out"? Like it all came out for Jose Padilla and that governor from Alabama? Where have you been the last eight years, merh?

And yes, the CIA does whatever the hell it wants, lies to Congress routinely, and gets away with it, and has for the last 62 years. That's why Pelosi called for a review of the 1947 National Security Act on Thursday and that's why I've got her back. I posted the quote here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5665599&mesg_id=5665599

[merh]

58. I'm not kidding.

Find me the law they would have charged her with violating.

I will show you that the law does not allow violations of the law to be concealed as classified information.

Go ahead, cite me the law you think they would have charged her with violating.

[bottomtheweaver]

61. Groan. It's been done, I've seen it, I'm not going to replay it yet again.

I know you think you're right on this merh, but I don't agree with you. She didn't have legal standing to disclose that info. It's f'd up and that's why she made the comment about reviewing the National Security Act, which I sincerely hope she does.

[merh]

64. It has not been done.

And even if it has, if you are going to argue something you better be able to back up your arguments with facts, with actual sources.

You have not done so and no one I have debated this topic with can cite me the law that she supposedly would have violated, no one has cited the law that she could have been charged with.

What has been shown is that no law, including the laws on "classified information" can be passed in order to conceal violations of the law. What has been shown is that the executive order on classified information specifically states that you cannot conceal violations of the law as classified information.

It is a basic legal premise, she should have gone to an attorney. The reason the intelligence community report to congress is because of that silly ole checks and balance thing, you know, congress tries to make sure the executive branch isn't breaking the law. Her duty is to defend the constitution, if she knew about torture and remained silent, then she did not do what she was elected to office to do.

Mind you, I don't believe she was told about the waterboarding, they didn't like to talk about it and denied they used it for years. I believe the CIA is lying.

[noamnety]

42. History lesson: This is how it's done. (from the horse's mouth)

This is for anyone who doesn't know the story of Gravel's actions when faced with a similar dilemma.

A sentence or two from wikipedia isn't enough for you to get the gist of this, that won't make you an informed citizen. If you really don't have a sense of how this went down in history, this is a must-see. One of the best youtubes ever, Gravel talking about what happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5ks8hz5Ulg&feature=player_embedded

[bottomtheweaver]

44. Gravel had thousands of pages of docs. What did Pelosi have?

We're talking 2002, not later.

[noamnety]

48. I know from the timing of your post you haven't watched this.

And I know from your other posts, your time would be better spent on this history lesson than on trading snarks with me here.

This is a good video, it has more to say than either you or I.

By fixating on "having documents" (for some unknown reason) you are stunningly missing the lessons of history.

[bottomtheweaver]

49. Wouldn't it just be easier to answer the question?

:shrug:

[noamnety]

52. Do you need an easy way out of watching the video?

I don't feel the need to make it any easier for you, I'm practically spoon feeding answers to you throughout this entire thread.

There's a platter of pure gold posted for your consumption - go take a look at it.

[bottomtheweaver]

57. If you can't answer directly, no, I'm not going to waste my time.

But thanks.

[noamnety]

62. Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of

unless it's willful. If you decide you would rather remain ignorant of a major turning point in history, that's on you, not me.

I'm sorry you view learning what happened as a waste of time. I suspect if you took the time to watch it, it would have an impact on you. It's your loss.

[bottomtheweaver]

63. I asked about Pelosi, not Gravel. n/t

[TwilightZone]

71. The claim is that the situations are identical, therefore, Pelosi should have put it on record.

The difference, as you noted, is that Gravel had the Pentagon Papers, and Pelosi had who knows what. We don't know for certain what she knew and when she knew it or what type of documentation she has. Probably very little, if any, though that's just a guess. Nobody outside of that briefing room really knows, even those who claim otherwise.

If we assume she knew about the program, it would have been her word vs. the administration's, with little or nothing backing her up.

[bottomtheweaver]

72. My strong impression is that she probably had nothing.

She says in her press conference that she was repeatedly misled by the CIA and administration and I sincerely doubt they'd let her walk out of a briefing with incriminating docs in her hand, and as she also says, what little they told her they lied about.

[TwilightZone]

73. As I noted elsewhere, she's asked that the notes and summary of her briefing be declassified.

That seems like an odd request if she's lying.

[merh]

54. She had a duty

She took an oath and, if she was told they were torturing, she could have done a whole lot more than sit back and do nothing.

Find me the law that she could have been charged with violating, tell me what they would have charged her with.

[Gregorian]

53. Thank you for that video!

Gravel is far greater a man than was painted by our "beloved" media during his presidential campaign. But aside from that, he comes across as much more concerned about the truth and maybe even Speaker Pelosi. I'm guessing on that last part. I want her to prove me wrong.

[noamnety]

59. Well said.

Every time I see that video I am reminded of exactly why he had to be vilified and marginalized by the democratic party during the campaign.