The Nancy Pelosi deathwatch

[Rawedge Rim]

In a perfect world, unelected judges with a lifetime tenure shouldn't be legislating from the bench, which Roe inarguably was. But you're right, the only way to override a SCOTUS decision would be to have them do it themselves.

'course there is always "ammending the Constitution" through the legislative process. This is a 100% guarantee as an "override" to the SCOTUS, as in theory, they only have the power to rule "Constitutional or UN-Constitutional".

Unless they rule the Amendment to be Unconstitutional, based upon the previous framework

Unless I'm completely missing something here, I don't see how. An "ammendment" to the Constitution, having gone through the House and the Senate, and having been voted in favor of by 2\3 of the individual states, becomes a part of the Constitution, and therefore cannot be unconstitutional. Perhaps wrong, but not Unconstitutional.

[Lord Mhoram]

That is correct.

[Avatar]

Perhaps wrong, but not Unconstitutional.

Always an interesting distinction.

--A

[Vraith]

Perhaps wrong, but not Unconstitutional.

Always an interesting distinction.

--A

Isn't that what happened with illegal booze? They had to amend the constitution to remove the prior amendment?

[dlbpharmd]

Perhaps wrong, but not Unconstitutional.

Always an interesting distinction.

--A

Isn't that what happened with illegal booze? They had to amend the constitution to remove the prior amendment?

Yes; the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment.

[Cail]

Right, and IIRC that's the only way to overturn anything in the Constitution.

[Zarathustra]

From Fox News (sorry, no one else is reporting it).

Last year, Pelosi said she was only briefed once on the advanced interrogation methods, in September 2002. At the time, Pelosi was the House Minority Whip and top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. She said in May 2009 that CIA briefers told her that "the use of enhanced interrogation techniques were legal," and added that waterboarding "was not being employed."

CIA records show that during the September 2002 briefing, Pelosi and others were given "a description of the particular enhanced interrogation techniques that had been employed" on Zubaydah. The U.S. was already waterboarding Zubaydah by that point.

Newly released CIA documents prove she was lying.

[Cybrweez]

Do you think anyone cares?

[Zarathustra]

If you mean, "do liberals here care?" then no. But I think it's still worth noting. The Dems were just as guilty at allowing "torture" to happen. Whatever I can do to correct the meme that "torture" was the Reps' fault, or that it didn't produce valuable intel, or that it was in fact torture, I will.

[Vraith]

Pelosi might have told a lie? I'm shocked! [no, I'm not, she's a politician]
I looked for these documents. I can't find them. All I can find is sources all referencing Fox about the documents.
I even checked fox news own site: not there.
Fox might lie? I'm shocked! [no, I'm not]
Show me the freaking documents, I'll decide what they freaking say: it's not rocket science.

[wayfriend]

If you mean, "do liberals here care?" then no.

By all means, continue to confuse liberals caring about what you guys post today with liberals caring about the issue. Then congratulate yourself because their not caring means you nailed them.

[Zarathustra]

I was just answering the question, WF. It's my opinion. You are free to prove me wrong anytime you wish by telling us (for instance) how offended you are that Pelosi would lie about something as important to libs as the U.S. torturing terrorists, if that's your position. Otherwise, you leave people to draw their own conclusions from your lack of committment one way or the other on this issue. You took the time to respond here, so obviously you're paying attention. Do you have an opinion on this issue, or just a reaction to me personally?

Vraith: Here's the newly released CIA documents, as the Freedom of Information Act request by Judicial WatchIt's 75 pages. I await your conclusions (I'm not reading it ).

www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126028

© 2010 WorldNetDaily


New documents obtained from the federal government under a Freedom of Information Act request from Judicial Watch confirm that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was briefed by the CIA on the interrogations of Abu Zubaydah, on whom "enhanced interrogation techniques" were used, in apparent contradiction to her own statements.

Which members of Congress knew exactly what about the enhanced techniques, which included waterboarding, became an issue when President Obama issued an order banning such "torture" soon after his inauguration last year.

Now Judicial Watch has obtained a largely redacted compilation of 75 pages of CIA documents about the issue and has posted them online.

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who previously denied she was briefed by the CIA on the use of these techniques, is specifically referenced in a briefing that took place on April 24, 2002, regarding the 'ongoing interrogations of Abu Zubaydah.' Zubaydah had been subjected to the enhanced interrogation techniques," the report from Judicial Watch said.

Pelosi has denied having been briefed on the waterboarding sessions, and at one point accused members of the CIA of misleading members of Congress about the issue. In a statement posted on her website, she said, "Of the 40 CIA briefings to Congress reported recently in the press, I was only briefed once, on September 4, 2002, as I have previously stated."

She continued, "As I said in my statement of December 9, 2007: '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 had no further briefings on the techniques," she said at the time.

"My understanding of the briefing I received is consistent with the description that CIA General Counsel Scott Muller provided to Congresswoman Jane Harman in a letter dated February 28, 2003, which states: 'As we informed both you and the leadership of the Intelligence Committees last September, a number of Executive Branch lawyers including lawyers from the Department of Justice participated in the determination that, in the appropriate circumstances, the use of these techniques is fully consistent with U.S. law.'"

Pelosi's office, contacted today by WND, did not respond to a request for comment.

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, said the documents regarding congressional "Torture Briefings" came in response to its lawsuit against the CIA over the documentation.

The documents, Judicial Watch said, previously marked "Top Secret," were from 2001 and 2007. They show that the CIA briefed 68 members of Congress on the CIA interrogation program, including so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques."

Judicial Watch said the documents include the dates of all congressional briefings and, in some cases, the members of Congress in attendance and the specific subjects discussed.

Previously obtained documents from the office of former Vice President Dick Cheney under a separate legal action brought out details of the effectiveness of the "enhanced interrogation techniques."

A June 1, 2005, CIA report called "Detainee Reporting Pivotal for the War Against al-Qaida," said, "Detainee reporting accounts for more than half of all HUMINT [human intelligence] reporting on al-Qaida since the program began," Judicial Watch said.

"Interestingly, this fact was omitted in later versions of the report obtained by Judicial Watch. All versions, however, conclude: 'One of the gains to detaining the additional terrorists has been the thwarting of a number of al-Qaida operations in the United States and overseas,'" the report said.

The federal government suspended the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" by the Detainee Treatment Act in 2005, and Obama officially banned such techniques in January 2009.

However, just two months later, Obama rejected concerns from national security experts and ordered the release of documents about the government's so-called "torture," at the same time withholding information about the results of the program.

The conflict deepened, Judicial Watch said, when in an April 2009 CNN report, President Obama's intelligence chief, Admiral Dennis Blair, reported to colleagues that "high value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaida organization that was attacking."

The statement, however, was omitted when Blair's office released the memo to the press.

"It is unfortunate that it took a federal court order to force the Obama administration to release these documents," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "These documents indicate that members of Congress approved of and were well aware of the use of these enhanced interrogation techniques and their lifesaving value. It is disturbing that we no longer use interrogation techniques that have demonstrably stopped terrorist attacks and saved American lives. The Obama administration has made this country less safe by its mishandling of the enhanced interrogation program."

The documents obtained by Judicial Watch confirm that information about al-Qaida plots against the U.S. West Coast, London and Karachi were uncovered. From the documents themselves, comes this assessment of the value of the techniques:


Prior to the capture of Abu Zubaydah in March 2002, we had large gaps in knowledge of al-Qaida's organizational structure, key members and associates, intentions and capabilities, possible targets for the next attack, and its presence around the globe. Within months of his arrest, Abu Zubaydah provided details about al-Qaida's organizational structure, key operatives, and modus operandi. For example, it was Abu Zubaydah, early in his detention, who identified KSM [Khalid Sheikh Mohammad] as the mastermind of 9/11. Until that time KSM did not even appear in our chart of key al-Qaida members and associates.
Fitton told WND it is becoming more and more clear that Congress had knowledge of the so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" and their value.

"You don't have these numerous briefings over the years if it wasn't working," he said. If they weren't working, "Why didn't Congress put a stop to them?"

"Congress knew they were working."

But he raised the possibility of political influence in the release of information about the program and what went on.

"The documents that Obama has chosen to release don't explicitly tie the information being obtained … [to the prevention of attacks.] A fair interpretation [says it] resulted in intelligence that helped prevent terrorist attacks," he said.

There had been numerous reports at the time in 2009 about Pelosi's oft-repeated denials she knew about waterboarding. Politico reported that it was in September of 2002 when Pelosi and others were given a "virtual tour" of the CIA's operations, including references to the waterboarding.

Fox News also reported a short time later when Pelosi accused the CIA of misleading Congress.

The Washington Post also reported on the briefing for Pelosi in September 2002.

WND columnist Larry Elder, a syndicated radio talk-show host, said the bottom line is that in the aftermath of 9/22, "most Americans – including the Democratic leadership in Congress – wanted to prevent another attack. … Speaker Nancy Pelosi understood, accepted and even encouraged harsh interrogation techniques to prevent another attack."

"But public opinion turned against the war. Then waterboarding became 'torture.' And Bush became not simply a commander in chief who, in good faith, relied on near-unanimous but faulty intelligence. He became, as then-Minority Leader Harry Reid said, 'a loser' and 'a liar,'" Elder wrote.

[wayfriend]

You took the time to respond here, so obviously you're paying attention. Do you have an opinion on this issue, or just a reaction to me personally?

I only had an opinion on the way suprerior arguments around here are fabricated on such sound premises as "no one responded to me, so I must be right". Thanks for asking though.

[Zarathustra]

Words you won't find in my post: "no one responded to me, so I must be right."

I invite you to start on a thread on the subject of correct/incorrect debating techniques if that's what you want to talk about. This thread is about Pelosi allegedly lying about her knowledge and approval of "torture." While I think the degree of Democrats' indifference on this issue is relevant, the current direction you're taking this discussion is not.

[wayfriend]

Sure thing. Didn't mean to deny anyone their moment of triumph.

[Zarathustra]

It's not my triumph. It's a victory for the CIA . . . and the truth.

[[Syl]]

If you mean, "do liberals here care?" then no.

I've been ready to see Pelosi go for a while, and this is just another nail in the coffin. Cut 'er loose.

Comma.

[Zarathustra]

Syl, cool. I stand corrected. I haven't read this thread in a while; forgive me for not remembering everything that was posted last May.

Like I said to WF, I'm willing to be corrected, and I'm glad to be wrong, to the extent that I am wrong. I still expect that liberals feel Bush/Cheney are the real focus, and that Pelosi is just a diversion (which was also said earlier in this thread). I suppose our interest in this subject is going to be relative to our ideological goals and political alignment, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. But if our Democrat leaders had held their ground, admitted their involvement, and publicly shared credit for the positive results of this interrogation program, I don't believe the American people would have been divided on this issue. There was a time when all our leaders agreed it was the right thing to do, and they were regularly briefed on its success in stopping future terror attacks (which is why they kept approving it). But when it came time to win an election, they divided and conquered the American people.

So to the extent that we can be on the same side of this issue, great! I think that's a triumph for both of us, and for the American people over our duplicitous leaders. But it's going to have to go beyond just recognizing that Pelosi lied. We must also take into account why she lied: to hide her approval of something that was working, something that our law said was not torture, something that stopped terrorist attacks, and something that Pelosi and the Dems twisted into nothing more than political weapon to use against the Reps during wartime. It's more than an embarrassing "gotcha" moment for Pelosi. It's the revelation of how willing the Dems are to turn perfectly legal, successful, life-saving strategies in an ongoing real war into merely propaganda fodder for their own personal political wars.

I suppose that's what I mean about "caring," and why I doubt the libs share this concern with me. But I'd be overjoyed to be wrong.

[[Syl]]

I don't expect you to remember everything I've said. I expect you not to presume to speak for me. If you want my opinion, just ask for it. I expect you don't, though, and I think we can all see how that whole thing of yours that liberals shouldn't take it personally is just talk.

[Zarathustra]

I don't expect you to remember everything I've said. I expect you not to presume to speak for me. If you want my opinion, just ask for it. I expect you don't, though, and I think we can all see how that whole thing of yours that liberals shouldn't take it personally is just talk.

I didn't speak for you. I spoke for me. Cybrweez was asking me for my opinion. I gave it. Our exchange had nothing to do with you, especially if my opinion is wrong when it comes to your interest in this topic.

You are making this personal, not me. Cybrweez's question applied to the level of interest or apathy in this particular issue, not anyone's particular personal qualities. Given that all politics can be reduced to our interest or apathy in issue or events, this is a political question. But your insinuations of what I want (or don't want) regarding liberals' participation, or your guesses about what "we can all see" concerning my stance on personal issues has nothing to do with this topic.