He said, She said

Why on God's green earth would this make any difference to the question of whether to hold people accountable?
.
People in DC really have a hard time understanding the concepts of "law," "legal," "rule of law," etc.
.
It's really not that complicated!

Jay Newton-Small: "And Pelosi has endured several brutal newscycles that hardly paused during her surprise Mother's Day trip to Iraq."

-

If a member of the United States Army or Marine Corps were alone with Pelosi, Fairy Reid and Osama bin Laden and only had two rounds for his weapon, would he put one round into Pelosi and one round into Reid and then strangle bin Laden or would he put both rounds into Pelosi and then strangle Fairy Reid and bin Laden?

And what does "everyone loses" mean? Because Pelosi endured a "brutal" news cycle (boo hoo) and Obama is triangulating (badly)?
.
"persecuting" - that's funny.

Goss seeded this memo into the CIA files as a summary of recollections, it comes with a disclaimer and Jay Newton-Small privileges it? Nonsense.

If Hoekstra was allowed to review this "memo" was Nancy Pelosi allowed to review it and correct for her recollections? No? Well then, case closed. Bob Graham, who was supposedly briefed at the same time, says he was not briefed on enhanced interrogation or waterboarding. Graham tends to bolster Pelosi's case.

Between Goss and Hoekstra, on the one hand, and Graham and Pelosi, on the other, I'm going to have to go with Graham and Pelosi. Remember, Goss had to leave CIA in a corruption scandal. Hoekstra, well, that speaks for itself.

Nancy Pelosi is blocking the US/Israeli planned actions on Iran. That is, in part, why she has been targeted in this malevolent fashion. This fact gives me a special appreciation for Nancy Pelosi. If she is taken down, Steny Hoyer replaces her and we're off to another $3 trillion war on Iran.

Obviously there seems to be political motivation behind this but it would be nice to see who is lying. If and when we find that out, then it will not matter whether it was politically motivated or not.
.
And Textee...seriously?

We're talking about Pete "Tweeting my way on a 'secret' visit to Iraq" Hoekstra, right? I mean, really?

Everyone loses? No, there are only a couple of losers here. For fun, lets name and number them.
-
1) The Constitution. Torture is outlawed under the Eighth Amendment. Part of that whole Bill of Rights bit they passed back in Washington's day. It's true, the constitution doesn't apply to non citizens, but it does seem to imply that torture has been viewed as a "bad thing" here for something like 200+ years.
-
2) The American People. Since apparently no one in any position of civilian or corporate power is responsible for anything anymore, lots and lots more violations of our collective rights should be continuing for the foreseeable future in ever greater amounts.
-
3) American Soldiers. Remember how only like 150 people died in the first Gulf War because the Iraqi Army surrendered en masse. They were willing to do that because everyone KNEW America treated their prisoners humanely. Good luck with that angle in the future. Also, have fun trying to convince the enemy to follow the Geneva Conventions if you get captured, since America itself no longer does.
-
4) National Security. Man, it sure would have been nice if we'd gotten useful information from our detainees. But, I guess its more important to torture them until they're literally insane and completely incapable of giving us information that doesn't involve eating poo.
-
Now, lets go over the winners here, 'cause you know there's a few of them.
-
1) Anybody in a position of power and/or authority who screws up. Hey, no accountability for you, just say "we need to move forward" a bunch of times and it magically fixes everything.
-
2) Journalists who lazily enabled these douchebags to lead the country off a cliff and want to enjoy the same protection for it as the people in power they helped to pull this off.
-
Also Jay, this is pretty much the exact opposite of a he said/she said. You know, because it doesn't involve a possible rape and does involve lots of written documents that give factual accounts of what happened. They're called "records". You might want to work that journalism degree a little bit and try to get copies of them. I'd recommend starting with a Freedom of Information Act request.

Sean, you imply in number 3 that the enemy will be less likely to torture Americans if we don't ever torture our prisoners. Well, this has never worked (the Japanese and Vietnamese come to mind), and I don't think it ever will. If an enemy force is going to torture their prisoners, the other side not doing it won't stop them. It's hard to imagine an American soldier about to be tortured but then someone coming in and yelling, "Stop! Stop! They don't do that to us! That wouldn't be fair!" I am NOT in favor of torture, but this argument just doesn't add up. There are much better ones. Also, the Geneva Convention agreements only apply to soldiers who fight under uniform for a country, ie NOT insurgents/terrorists/whatever.
.
Sorry if I sound like a jerk here, sometimes I find I'm more critical of my side of an argument than I am of the other.
.
And I really don't see how people can be of favor of investigating the torture allegations but not be in favor of prosecution. It has to be all or nothing here. You can't investigate something and once you find that crimes are committed say "oh well" and just walk away.

If a member of the United States Army or Marine Corps were alone with textee, Rustyreturns and spob and only had two rounds for his weapon, would he put one round into Rusty and one round into textee and then strangle spob or would he put both rounds into textee and then strangle rustyreturns and spob?
.
And more importantly, would anyone miss them?

Repeat after me slowly.
.
It doesn't matter a whit what Pelosi knew and when she knew it. Democratic complicity doesn't make anything different or any less illegal. It is not a political question.
.
Lets try it with fewer words and more repetitions until it sinks in.
.
Torture is not a political issue.
Torture is not a political issue.
Torture is not a political issue.
.
There are not two coequal sides on the question.
.
There is no he-said she-said possible.
.
The torture itself was a criminal act and the memo's claiming otherwise were legal malpractice.
.
If Nancy Pelosi was in on the conspiracy then go ahead and name her in the indictment.

This is a two party cover up and the media, as usual, is playing the role of hand maiden. No one cares if Pelosi knew. If she did then she is guilty of war crimes as well.

Only the dumb ass Washingnton press core gives a sh*t whether or not Democrats or Republicans agreed or disagreed with programs that they had no control over. Nobody else gives a damn. If Democrats are complicit, investigate their ass. Its really that simple. But NOOOOOOOOO we get moronic bullsh*t like this because of course if Peter Hoekstra says something the stenographers have to report it right? Got damn we deserve better than this bullsh*t. Here is a clue, even if the CIA released the MFRs and it was just like Hoekstra said what the f*ck difference would it make? Not a damn bit.

This has turned into a real partisan slugfest. But does it matter if Pelosi was there or wasn't there? The Bush administration still took part in illegal acts.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

The way questions are framed shows how false the debate is. If we believe we are a nation of laws then it does not matter whether a law was broken by a Democrat or a Republican. If torture is illegal then those who engaged in the practice need to be held to account. Selective leaking, edited documents and other nifty excercises in buck passing is something that a sceptical press should guard against. But...of course.. that requires a healthy scepticism among those in the press corps.

In the run up to the Iraq War too many in the press acted as cheer leaders.

Greg Sargent at Plum Line digs diligently on this subject.

Pelosi may be guilty too is the Republican talking point on this issue, which is why the MSM is repeating it over and over.

Of course the reason Pelosi was briefed at the time was to prepare for just this moment.
.
I believe the technical term is blackmail.

"Also, the Geneva Convention agreements only apply to soldiers who fight under uniform for a country, ie NOT insurgents/terrorists/whatever."
.
apollyon07-I don't agree with this statement. Because the Convention does apply to others besides soldiers in uniform as long as they meet certain conditions. Read Article 4 of the Convention. Further more the United States as a party to the Convention is bound by it even if they are in conflict with a party who is not. Finally labeling resistance as insurgents or terrorists is problematic in of itself because there will come a time again in the near future where we will support resistance movement when its to our benefit.

JNS,
a couple of things about your reporting. This:

Hoekstra is using the brouhaha over whether Pelosi knew about the waterboarding as a retort to Pelosi's call for a Truth Commission.

is key. Thanks for noticing, but no thanks for *not* keying your post off this very important observation. Instead, you frame it as "He said, she said." I think that's a bad frame and a lazy frame, and a too-safe frame for you that misleads your readers and serves Hoekstra (a known and proven liar, ask Joe Klein) very, very well. I'm sure Rep Hoestra thanks you very much for carrying his water.
.
Because this:

Hoekstra says they were told of the Administration's waterboarding and other extreme interrogation techniques at that briefing;

means that Hoekstra KNEW, right? He's admitting that he knew. Don't you *get* that? Everyone, including my side, is beating up on Pelosi and leaving Hoekstra alone, much to his amusement, I'm sure.
.

In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal last month Hoekstra warned that the first place such a commission should look is who in Congress supported and authorized such programs,

What is Hoekstra doing here, given that he admits that he knew and presumably supported the administration? And don't you get that no one in Congress is accused of *authorizing* the programs? Certainly Pelosi wasn't in a position of either "supporting" or "authorizing" such programs. So what is this all about?
.
You reporters are so addicted to reprinting Republican statements, tacking on a pithy observation, and not doing a minute's worth of analysis or reflection on what you or they have said. This kind of stuff is why we call you stenographers, and why you deserve the characterization.

@ James: We report. You decide. But what does "reporting" mean?

@bitterpill8: Well, I think it could be reported in different ways, but JNS chose to use the easy, Republican-furnished frame, to flog the idea that Pelosi "lied" for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Meanwhile, she allows these glaring lapses in logic to go without notice while she tosses off a couple of pithy, faux-hip-cynical wisecracks and a formulaic "he-said-she-said! Sigh!" at the end.
.
What concerns me even more that my side just happily jumps in with their two-by-fours to bash Pelosi as well, without a moment's thought about what the evidence is. My side's high-horse moralizing on this is disheartening. Talk about playing into Hoekstra/Goss's scheme. Jay-sus. None of it is meaningful anyway. Whether Hoekstra and/or Pelosi was briefed in 2002 about the specifics or not *does not* relieve the principals of the crimes.

What Paul Dirks said.
-
Which, just so we all remember, was:
-
Torture is not a "he said, she said" controversy.
-
It is a matter of the rule of law.
-
Torture is about legal violations.
-
It is not about losing a news cycle.
-
Torture is not a political issue. It is a legal and moral issue.

As is the usual case, virtually everyone would be better off if they just went straight to Marcy Wheeler's reporting;
Emptywheel » Graham Corroborates Pelosi
and
Emptywheel » Why Is Pat Roberts So Quiet?
.
and don't forget her great timeline:
Emptywheel » Timing and the Sheikh al-Libi Death
.
Now THAT'S what I call reporting, bitterpill!

apollyon
.
First off the Supreme court has already decided that enemy combatants DO fall under the Geneva Conventions. I know for a long time George Bush and the right wing has asserted that they don't but unfortunately the Court saw differently.
.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/hamdan-summary-and-huge-news/
.

Even more importantly for present purposes, the Court held that Common Article 3 of Geneva applies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda. That is the HUGE part of today's ruling. The commissions are the least of it. This basically resolves the debate about interrogation techniques, because Common Article 3 provides that detained persons “shall in all circumstances be treated humanely,” and that “[t]o this end,” certain specified acts “are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever”—including “cruel treatment and torture,” and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” This standard, not limited to the restrictions of the due process clause, is much more restrictive than even the McCain Amendment.

.
Secondly whether al qaeda decides not to torture any of our troops they capture isn't really the point. The point is how many more members does al qaeda and other radical islamist groups gain when it is shown that we have tortured them. Right now there are probably militants in both Iraq and Iran who are targeting out troops for just that very reason.
.
Thirdly and most important, we won't always just be fighting radical islamic terrorists. Recently North Korean officials were asked about the health of the two American journalists they have illegally arrested. Their response was, and I am paraphrasing here, we are not GITMO we do not torture. How phucked up is it that North Korea is now lecturing us on how to treat prisoners? But by torturing enemy detainees we have opened ourselves up to that criticism from some of the world's worst offenders when it comes to human rights abuses. Not only that, should we ever get into another war with a nation state, including those who also signed on to the Geneva Conventions, what would be their motivation to hold back from torturing our soldiers? Simply put ther wouldn't be any.

Matt Taibbi wrote a post about torture that it tailor made for our resident trolls. Enjoy.
.
http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/05/11/torture-is-fun/

Hospitals can serve as detention facilites. You really out to be reporting on the abuse of the hospital system. On my last visit an alleged friend with no medical expertise informed me I would stay 2 months instead of the one week the doctor recommended. I apologize to him. he was so entitled to my body. Where is the public outrage over the enormous population expansion by one bright woman who loves life and articulates her own opinions in creative ways? She wanted a legacy of writing for causes, not a whole lot of baby fat.
It's like her right not to be used and abused is not reacognized. She's a whore, to be sexed. A breeder. She has no rights. No control over her own body. She was happy to be pregnant once and thought better of it at a later date.

And great redraven. Real moral character. Now only the "kool kids" get to live. What about us reclusive artists who are happily changing the world with philosophy and profund artwork? If you were capable of it, wouldn't you use it? It saves lives when used appropriatly.

Dostoevsky wrote three books that I know of: Crime and Punishment, Brother's Karamasov, and The Idiot.

I haven't read Crime and Punishment, but I believe it's about being imprisoned for flimsy, trumped up charges. I feel sympathy for many of America's prisoners. Let's hope they aren't repeat offenders.

Then there are people who get punished and interogated just for no good reason or because of the actions of someone else. These people never deserved interogation. I'm sure they've been released.

The other two books of Dostoevsky deal with unrequited love. Personally, i've always been very elizabethian: I paint my face, never wanted children, and sought to be indepedent. The universe has too many secrets too let the rejection of one wicked bastard man be the fall of a great bastard woman.