If I am a member of Congress and am given a state secret with the
warning, "Ok, now keep your mouth shut about this, or else," I could
laugh in their faces. I could tell anyone and their mother-in-law
about what I heard.
But there are special rules for the Intelligence Committee's. To hear
state secrets it is necessary to take an oath not to reveal them. No
oath - No secrets. If Ms. Pelosi had revealed what she had been told
she would have been in direct violation of the rules. She would have
been justly accused of commiting a near treasonious act.
The humour of this situation is that people like "thatemailname"
would have been the first to accuse her of treason if she had
violated that oath.
You would be reading threads on BLOGS, saying, "Traitor Pelossi
endangers National Security. Scum Democrats hate America."
So, now she's a traitor for not commiting treason - Truly
hysterically funny if you think about it.
As for the CIA Budget, it's always been an up or down vote. There is
no line by line opportunity to vote for this and reject that.
The humour continues...
Dave
Sorry, doesn't wash. To think for one second that if Pelosi really
thought the US was engaging in violations of international law, she
would have just sat there and said and done nothing is laughable. It
is a lame excuse that even she has stopped trying to peddle.
Ahh, I knew I could count on you for more humor. "even she has stopped trying to peddle?"
That happens to be false - In fact it's her main argument. Now it may be that you've been saying that little things like "oaths" and sworn statements are meaningless, but I do believe that says more about you then her. She was briefed once, when her replacement, Harman was briefed, Harman (2/2003) she immediately wrote to the CIA stating that this policy IF it had already occured, was illegal.
******************
Democrats contend that the issue is not what Pelosi knew and when she knew it, but the restrictive nature of the briefings during the Bush administration. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, is leading a renewed effort to expand the briefing process. In the first four years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, only the four leaders of the intelligence panels were briefed on the most sensitive issues, and they were forbidden from discussing what they learned with anyone else.
Pelosi's only briefing came Sept. 4, 2002, a week before the first anniversary of the attacks, and included then-Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.), who at the time was chairman of the intelligence committee. Along with their chief counsels, they were the first congressional officials briefed on the interrogation tactics. Pelosi left the intelligence committee in January 2003 to become the House Democratic leader, remaining one of eight lawmakers who had the highest clearances to access classified information.
Harman was surprised at what she learned, particularly that intelligence officials had video of the waterboarding of Abu Zubaida and were planning on destroying it. Captured in early 2002, Abu Zubaida, whose real name is Zayn al-Abidin Muhammed Hussein, faced months of standard interrogations before being sent to a CIA-run facility where the harsher techniques were used.
Harman wrote to the CIA's general counsel on Feb. 10, 2003, to question whether the methods "are consistent with the principles and policies of the United States. Have enhanced techniques been authorized and approved by the president?"
****************************
By this logic, you're saying that if the CIA went into a briefing and
told Congress persons that they were planning to invade Cuba next
month, in a new Bay of Pigs invasion, Pelosi and Reid would just sit
there and say "Gosh, I don't think that's a good idea, but gee whiz I
can't say or do anything about it. Oh well, wonder what's for lunch
in the cafeteria." ??? Now that's funny!
Such an act, without the concurance of Congress as a body, would be illegal. Aside from Constitutional requirements, the War Powers Act mandates that the Executive inform Congress of defacto declarations of War.
And the Dems could have held up the special war appropriations budget
authorization over this issue, if they had had an issue with it But
of course, at the time, they had no issue with any of this.
Your entire argument rests on demanding that she commit treason. And you are
Outraged that she did not commit treason.
So far in the history of these Intelligence Committee rules, not one leak has actually been traced back to a member of Congress of
either Party. Yet this is what you are demanding - And you're not shy about demanding treason from her. You yell it to the sly!
Let me repeat this question since it seems to have you tongue tied. If in 2002 Ms. Pelossi had revealed this information, would you or would you not have accused her of treason, of endangering the security of the United States?
This is your last chance to
man-up and be honest.
Dave
