Marcy is the empress of timelines in legal and political discussions. She can ferret out the smallest revealing details and put them in order and connect dots.
I light incense and bring flowers.
Because no one in Congress was told that the CIA was going to start torturing in 2002, until it was too late. Pelosi and Goss were told, after CIA had waterboarded Abu Zubaydah 83 times, that CIA might waterboard in the future. Bob Graham was not told of waterboarding at all, according to him. Jello Jay was not at the briefing at which CIA told Pat Roberts "in considerable detail" about waterboarding. The CIA doesn't even say Jane Harman was told about waterboarding specifically in February 2003 (though I assume she was).--Emptywheel
The first time CIA can say for certain that any Democratic members of Congress at all were briefed on waterboarding was in July 2004, after CIA had waterboarded for what ended up being the last time, and after their own Inspector General determined they were breaking the law.
And then, in 2005, when CIA was trying to sustain their ability to torture against Congressional wishes, CIA had briefings for Ted Stevens and Thad Cochran with no Democrats in attendance. They had a briefing for John McCain with no Democrats in attendance. They had two briefings for Bill Frist with no Democrats in attendance. They had a briefing for Duncan Hunter with no Democrats in attendance. They had a briefing for Crazy Pete Hoekstra with no Democrats in attendance.
Lindsey Graham says that, "if you were trying to commit a crime ... you would not go around telling people on the other side of the aisle about it." And that, as it turns out, is exactly what the public record shows: that the Bush Administration did not tell Democrats about what they were doing. For six months to two years after they started this program, and again when they were under pressure to end it, the Bush Administration did not go around telling people on the other side of the aisle about it.
The Goopers may now stop whining about what the Dems knew about torture. I have no problem with holding ALL sides accountable to the extent they are culpable, but you cannot - with the least shred of integrity - pretend that there was any equivalency in guilt on the torture front. This one belongs to the Bush White House. Period.
--the BB
2 comments:
Yes, Paul, it does. And to every American who accepts at this point that there was nothing wrong with the practices, or that the ends justified the means, or that those who tortured or approved torture ought not be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
And to any politician, including President Obama, who ignores the oath they took upon assuming office to defend and uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States. Not being properly briefed before the fact doesn't relieve any of them (or us) from our present responsibility to insist on justice and the rule of law.
Preach it, brother!
We do indeed have a responsibility as citizens to insist on justice and the rule of law.
And that means real trials with rules of evidence, no going to the dark side from time to time. Dang, I'm getting myself riled up before bedtime. Though we all need riling up.
Post a Comment