On The Ed Show - The Torture Issue IS NOT about Nancy Pelosi

[Joanne98]

Run time: 06:04 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6QZqqB3P38   Posted on YouTube: May 14, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: May 15, 2009 By DU Member: Joanne98 Views on DU: 972

 

[stlsaxman]

1. Maybe he was always this good but my level of respect for Ed has SOARED since he's been on tv.

[cooolandrew]

2. Totally agree he presents a good show, makes an impact that's what we always need more of. Ed's>

been great on other guest appearances too, so I guessed the show would be something to watch.

[realitythink]

3. I've been pleasantly surprised by Ed.

[ejpoeta]

4. the best way to combat these clowns is to show them saying something different.

it's true that the republicans are trying to reframe this so that it is about pelosi. well, it doesn't matter what she knew... she couldn't do anything. what is the point of telling congress if congress can't friggin do anything about it, anyway! but i do like how ed is conducting his interviews and how he is presenting his arguments.

[stlsaxman]

6. The "Congress was informed" argument is cover because they CAN do something about it.

This is why the Cheney Administration says it "informed the 'Congressional Gang Of Eight' on interrogation" when in fact it was only two were at first. The GOP has furthered this lie to say that congress, by being informed, condoned it's use.

Cheney coined the phrase "plausible deniability" for a reason- and it's come in mighty handy!

[ejpoeta]

10. reminds me of when i was a kid. my brother used to go sneak stuff at night.

sometimes i'd come down and catch him, at which time he'd ask if i wanted some.... then when my mom asked who got into something, pat would say i did it. or if he was in trouble, he would say i did it too. sounds familiar. i remember that i as well as he got in trouble. my mother did not care.

[armyowalgreens]

5. I'm sorry but Ed really is full of s^&t

He makes a good point about the potential of the CIA or other parts of government intentionally misleading congress.

But to suggest that it doesn't matter if Pelosi knew about the torture is simply stupid. If she knew about the techniques, and understood them enough to know that they were torture, than she is culpable. She is a damn accessory and should be investigated.

I don't side with Karl Rove ever. But he made a good point even if it was by accident.

[lazer47]

7. You are the one full of it,,Even if she was told, she couldn't say anything

it was "classified" dummy. Even Rockfellow couldn't say anything. She wasn't in the Majority, she wasn't the Speaker of the House, she was just a member of the Inte. committee,,,

[pjt7]

8. Ed is a strong D

good to see him get his own show.

[destes]

12. Beware the land of "he said-she said". Nothing to gain...

........no time for it. I'm afraid we must arm ourselves with the essential facts, hold them close and engage the enemy head on.

The facts:
2000 US executive taken over by the audacity of fraud
2001 3 buildings in NYC fell by controlled demolition, an object flies into the pentagon and a flight is missing in PA. Afghanistan invaded.
2002 poppies bloom once more. Paul Wellstone and family murdered.
2003 the US military and a whole bunch of mercenaries rape Iraq.
2004 the US military abandons its Saudi Arabian Base to move it to Iraq.
2005 body count rises in Iraq, allies leave
2006 body count rises in Iraq, allies leave. War escalation slows. Economy slows.
2007 body count rises in Iraq, allies leave. Democrats barely control congress due to record mid-term voting. Economy continues to decline.
2008 Allies essentially all gone. Wall Street and banks collapse. In last ditch effort to complete total ruin of America, Bush gives trillion dollar bonus to financial industry. In forest of CEO high fives the announcement is secretly made, "Mission Accomplished".
2009 Democrats in chaos talk of investigating each other thus ensuring Republican gains in 2010.

[JDPriestly]

19. Unlikely that Pelosi could even be indicted as an accomplice or accessory

I post this again:

Here are some legal definitions of "accomplice."

One who knowingly, voluntarily and with common intent unites with the principal offender in the commission of a crime. {case citation omitted]
One who is in some way concerned or associated in commission of crime; partaker of guilt; one who aids or assists, or is an accessory. {case citation omitted] Equally concerned in the commission of crime. {case citation omitted] One who is guilty of complicity in crime charged, either by being present and aiding or abetting in it, or having advised and encouraged it, though absent from place when it was committed, though mere presence, acquiescence, or silence, in the absence of a duty to act, is not enough, no matter how reprehensible it may be, to constitute one an accomplice. One is liable as an accomplice to the crime of another if he gave assistance or encouragement or failed to perform a legal duty to prevent it with the intent thereby to promote or facilitate commission of the crime.

Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.)pg. 17

Complicity: A state of being an accomplice; participation in guilt. {case citation omitted] Involvement in crime as principal or as accessory before the fact. May also refer to activities of conspirators.

Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.) pg. 285

This portion of the definition strikes me as most important.

Nancy Pelosi's "mere presence, acquiescence, or silence, in the absence of a duty to act" would not be "enough, no matter how reprehensible" to make her an accomplice.

IMO, so far, there is no evidence that Nancy Pelosi was "knowingly, voluntarily and with common intent" united in the commission of the crime of torture by the Bush administration. Her approval or disapproval of their torture was essentially irrelevant, especially since they had already tortured at least once, apparently, before they told her anything about it. (She was briefed only once before being replaced as the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee.)

Further, Nancy Pelosi did not assist in the commission of the torture. She was not involved in giving any of the orders. She claims that she was merely informed that torture had been approved and did not learn until after her briefing that torture had actually been performed.

Whether Pelosi is misrepresenting what she was told can only be decided by a court. We really don't have any evidence that she was told anything different from what she has said she was told. The CIA's memos and notes are hearsay. You would have to cross-examine the CIA's witnesses on this. Her briefings were actually just informational. At most, she could have written a letter of protest to file. But as we know from the experiences of other members of Congress who wrote such letters, most notably Jay Rockefeller with regard to the wiretapping program, her letter would have had no effect. Thus, not only did she not assist in the commission of the torture or any other crime, but she had no power to stop the torture or any other crime.

Nancy Pelosi was not, by any stretch of the imagination, "equally concerned" in the commission of the torture.

Nancy Pelosi was not "present" and did not aid or abet the commission of the torture. There is no evidence that she advised or encouraged it, "though absent from place when it was committed." We have no evidence that Nancy Pelosi assisted or encouraged the torture. Nor did she fail "to perform a legal duty to prevent it with the intent thereby to promote or facilitate commission of the crime." She had a legal duty to be silent about everything she was told in the hearing.

Bob Graham pretty much supports Pelosi's statements. The briefings were not recorded as far as we know. The notes and other written records are hearsay evidence -- as are written police reports, by the way. They would be admissible into evidence in a court only to the extent that they could be introduced under an exception to the hearsay rule in the Rules of Evidence. Could happen, but it would not be a given.

[baldguy]

9. When you're rooting out a tree, you start at the trunk.

[florida08]

11. Ed nailed it

This is the same crap they pulled on 'a few bad apples.' Well if the core is bad eventually so will the apple be. Corruption comes from the top and only cowards would hide behind this bait and switch caper.

[stlsaxman]

13. c'mon folk- rec it up!

[90-percent]

14. NON PARTISAN COMMISSION

The 9-11 commission was BI PARTISAN

Bipartisan Commissions allows the elites to cover up the crimes of the elites.

If this commission ends up being "bi-partisan" then we all know the results will be really well constructed cover ups for all of history.

-90% Jimmy

[bdamomma]

15. damn straight Ed, we need a special investigation and a

special prosecuter, what do we need to do to get some justice and some action and lock these SOB's up!!!

[RufusTFirefly]

16. Ed's best point: "The issue is the law."

The law doesn't apply only when it's convenient. It can't be swept aside or disregarded when people are really, really scared or really, really angry. The law is the law. No one should be exempt from it.

Torture is against the law. In fact, it's against multiple laws, both domestic and international. If the U.S. truly believed there were times when torture was merited, it should not have passed or agreed to the laws that expressly prohibit it.

[Tx4obama]

17. K&R nt

[JimWis]

18. I am becoming a big fan of the Ed show.