Congress: What Pelosi knew
MSNBC / Domenico Montanaro
08-May-2009 (9 comments)

What did she know, and when did she know it? The Washington Post: “Intelligence officials released documents this evening saying that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was briefed in September 2002 about the use of harsh interrogation tactics against al-Qaeda prisoners, seemingly contradicting her repeated statements over the past 18 months that she was never told that these techniques were actually being used.” And there’s also that tricky issue of those ethics investigations that still haven’t happened relating to Jack Murtha and Charlie Rangel.

>>>
recommended by capt_ayhab

Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

 
Ostaad

Fish - As a rule, I avoid indulging in...

by Ostaad on Fri May 08, 2009 04:45 PM PDT

endless and USELESS discussions about hypotheticals, and discussing day-time TV shows with an intention of drawing conclusions applicable to real life!

Alan Dershowitz has the answers that'll bring a big smile on your lips. I have a sneeky feeling that you and him agree on lots of things.

Here you go:

//edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/cnna.Dershow...


  •  
Ostaad

Fishanamous, may this'll convince you...

by Ostaad on Fri May 08, 2009 04:46 PM PDT

after all people HAVE been prosecuted for having knowledge of crimes inflicted on others and not doing anything about it. They are called the 'silent co-conspirator", there ARE laws in the US about that.

Listen to Jonathan Turley, a professor of US Constitution, explaining the "enhanced interrogation techniques" in plain English why Pelosi and others in her party are guilty:

//msnbcpod.vo.llnwd.net/o1/QuerySplicedItemCo...

His segement starts half-way into the clip.


  •  
anonymous fish

tacit approval

by anonymous fish on Fri May 08, 2009 03:17 PM PDT

might be the most valuable weapon in politics.  or if not weapon, certainly the most valuable asset of a politician.

let me ask this.  in the MOST general of discussions.  not with regard to gitmo or evin.  not as used against muslims or jews specifically.  but in general.  what is the limit to interrogation?  do you simply ask if you're involved and accept that someone isn't if they say "no".  hells bells.  i didn't believe my son when he told me he didn't do something i knew damn well he did.  should i have just accepted it?  where do you draw the line? 

do either of you watch 24?  what about when jack knew the whateverhewas's aide was part of the plot.  time was of the essence.  he had to force a confession.  so he zapped the guy a little.  yes, technically it's torture but he got the truth.  hundreds of lives were saved. 

was it justified?  i'm just asking. 


  •  
Kaveh Nouraee

Anyone in Pelosi's position

by Kaveh Nouraee on Fri May 08, 2009 03:02 PM PDT

in Congress, not only knew of this, but knew of this in great detail.

After all, as Speaker of the House, she is third in the line of succession after the President and Vice-President.

Even though she opposed going into Iraq in 2002, as ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee she was provided detailed information by the CIA and the military on the interrogation techniques being used, including waterboarding. It's par for the course.

Back in 2002 nobody cared if you beat these terrorists to get info out of them. It's typical of Pelosi to deny her knowledge of the matter. She was, is, and always will be a snake.

Fish....awareness combined with silence is itself a form of approval. As much as this woman loathes the GOP and Bush, the only reasons she didn't speak out against them is because she didn't object back then.


  •  
anonymous fish

i see that...but

by anonymous fish on Fri May 08, 2009 02:54 PM PDT

i just don't see where there is anything that anyone can point out and say that she knew. you're stating your opinion when you say she's lying. it's valid as an opinion but proof? i just don't think so. i don't know. another sticky wicket. and again, is awareness the same thing as approval. i personally don't think so. i've said it before... that kind of blanket statement is gonna bite you in the you-know-what.


  •  
capt_ayhab

Pelosi

by capt_ayhab on Fri May 08, 2009 01:57 PM PDT

I personally have no regards for Pelosi, I do not like her, I do not trust her and I think she just an old politician that just plays both sides of the fence. And I am not referring to bi-partisanship.Watch and judge yourselves.

I think she is lying !Just notice how gently she is being handled by my FAVORITE Rachel JUN Maddow?

 

-YT


  •  
anonymous fish

this says absolutely

by anonymous fish on Fri May 08, 2009 01:38 PM PDT

this says absolutely nothing.  it clarifies nothing.  it proves nothing.  it disputes nothing.  read the whole thing people!  read the associated links!  there is nothing to prove that she knew about waterboarding.  nothing!  it was the first, the very first, briefing of the whole thing.  it said nothing about torture.

the problem is is that you're reading what you want to believe.  you're not reading the fine print which says... we're going to screw pelosi over and hope that no one reads this disclaimer which says that we're just blowing smoke up your ass.

that being said, there is also a big difference between being aware of something and endorsing it.   oh man, i hope... i really hope...that someone comes back and jumps on that statement.  i really really can't wait... :-)


  •  
default

Pelosi is dazed

by XerXes (not verified) on Fri May 08, 2009 11:30 AM PDT

She is a air head,nothing more.


  •  
Ostaad

The problem is...

by Ostaad on Fri May 08, 2009 09:30 AM PDT

a lot of democrats (with small d) including Pelosi, did not have any moral and legal objections to torture - as long as a "legal" finding to support it was available.

The reason why Pelosi and other dems are so coy about persecuting the Bush administaration officials for violating the US laws against torture is they were aware of it and they fully endorsed it too.


  •