If you think Nancy Pelosi is implicated in the torture scandal, you've conceded that there is a torture scandal
Posted May 17, 2009, 8:38 AM UTC
11239
I remember a time, in deep deep history, when we investigated something called "Whitewater" - which eventually turned into a blow job investigation.
A full scale affair in which eventually Congress was called to impeach, and actually did impeach, the President of the United States.
So it was no big shock when a few years later a President lied us into war, and authorized torture, that absolutely nothing was done.
10
"Conceded that torture occurred?" Ha, only if you subscribe to logic.
9
Every single one of these people who, by their decision or by their silence, allowed torture needs to be punished for their crimes. I don't care if it takes down the whole congress. In fact, given the government that we've had lately, that might be a good thing.
8
[deleted]
1
Cool. Let's just make up laws as we go along.
-2
I'm not suggesting new laws, I'm suggesting we follow the ones on the books, like this one:
§ 2340A. Torture
(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life. (b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if— (1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or (2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender. (c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.
13
Only upvoted so that others can see your stupid remark and the US Code already posted in reponse.
8
[deleted]
1
I'm sure the proper defense is "Well, what sort of credence do the Democrats have if their own is implicated?" which forces them to back off, or eat one of their own.
They don't have to admit torture is bad, they can just play within the Democrats framework.
7
Eat Nancy Pelosi. I heard she tastes like cake.
Delicious cake.
Of course, we all know the cake is a lie.
0
I think there's an illegal wiretapping scandal. Who's implicated in that?
3
NSA, AT&T, I believe.
More info. http://www.eff.org/nsa/faq
2
No...I concede that Nancy doesn't really think it is torture and her ignoring it until she thought she had a chance to make political hay proves that she doesn't think its torture, or at the very least the line is fuzzier than many people want to admit.
2
and your point is...?
2
[deleted]
1
BINGO!!!!!!
1
Personally, I don't understand this. First of all, its just a diversionary tactic. Secondly, do the republicans think that all of a sudden there will be a republican speaker or something? My congressman, Hoyer, will be the speaker... which may be even worse. I hate that guy.
We need term limits on these assholes.
1
A term limit is the next election. Just vote out the assholes. Easy as that. Most sheeple go along with whatever they had before and keep the assholes in.
3
It's not a diversionary tactic. It's a matter of Pelosi being truthful with the American people. Do you think it's a good idea if the people we elect to run this circus aren't honest with us? (Hint: that's a bad thing)
-3
I think its a good idea when arguments like yours include at least a molecule of perspective. When that happens, suddenly the focus isn't on Pelosi.
1
Right. If Pelosi did absolutely everything wrong that was even potentially possible for her role, she merely failed to live up to the standards we should expect of our leaders - It would be rational to expect her to resign, but there is little justification for bringing criminal charges, and the maximum possible sentences for such would probably run no more than a couple of years. Whereas if we say the same about Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, et. all. We are talking about "by the neck until dead". Even Colin Powell would probably merit ten times any sentence Pelosi could conceivably deserve, as his involvement is more direct, AND took place before the fact not after. Both lying to constituents about how much you were briefed on and approving the sodomizing of eight year olds in front of their parents are 'bad things', but I know which one I want prosecuted first, and I'm really starting to wonder how the people who feel the other way can sleep nights.
5
There is a bigger picture, but the bigger picture doesn't change the fact that Pelosi might have lied to the American people. And if she lied, she should be censured and leave office.
0
WHat about torturers?
2
Thats kind of like police arriving at the scene of the crime, walking past the murderer and taking the dude next to him into custody for not calling 911 fast enough. And the cops say: Yeah, maybe I should get the murderer too. (shrug, yawn....) But the bigger picture doesn't change the fact...
Point being, you've commented several times on the extent of Pelosi's guilt, but don't seem to actually care about any republican implications in the torture scandal because you are so busy drooling at the prospect of "getting" Pelosi.
1
Torture is an elaborate form of political ventriloquism.
Of course politicians are implicated, starting with those who executed torture, then followed by those who witnessed a serious crime and said nothing, except in the case where the law required people say nothing about what they witnessed, such as this case.
But first thing is first. Prosecute torturers.
1
GOP+Faux+Limpdick+Cheney=Passing the Buck
0
מנא ,מנא, תקל, ופרסין
-3
The only torture are Pelosi's tortured excuses.
This is about Pelosi being a barefaced liar regarding being briefed on interrogation methods.
-3
What about Bush being a barefaced liar about Iraq being a threat to the United States?
3
You are changing the topic. Sure sign of a losing argument.
-3
No, those who are calling for Pelosi to be investigated BEFORE FINISHING UP ON BUSH AND CHENEY are the ones "changing the topic"
I am simply returning the topic to the important one. The prosecution of alleged CRIMINALS for their choice to violate US Law.
3
Prosecute torturers.
Death penalty might apply. One candidate for a state AG office said he would use the death penalty only for cases of torture, and killing a policeman. I heard this AG candidate on a radio ad a few days ago.
1
I am fairly certain that the issue is not torture, it's purgery.
-4
[deleted]
1
[deleted]
1
I don't really care who gets burned over this snafu, as long as Bush goes to jail.
All of the top Democrats have been supporting this crap since day one and 50% of the Democratic party has backed it as well.
Doesn't matter. Put Bush and Cheney in jail. Somehow the republicans have shifted the discussion to the occupant of the next cell, and whether Pelosi should be there or not. We should first put the two biggest criminals in jail, then we can bicker over Pelosi's fate.
I'm reaching the point where I want Obama put in prison right along with Bush and Cheney.
Obama, by his own orders just killed 140 civilians in Afghanistan this week including dozens of children.
There isn't any form of justification for this, but it certainly explains why Obama wants the photos/evidence of U.S. soldiers doing things to Iraqi women and sodomizing Iraqi children covered up.
Because Obama is continuing to do this crap.
I voted for Obama, I already want him out of office. He's just an Israeli/DLC stooge, who can speak in complete sentances. Nothing more, nothing less and the DLC/Israeli crowd most certainly does not have policies the country or the world at large will benefit from.
It's okay though ... let Obama lose the Internet and his base. If he thinks racist southern right-wing Republicans are going to turn out and vote for him, he's insane ... but if the GOP puts up someone smart, younger, and new for a change, I may vote GOP in 2010 and 2012.
Ron Paul! His son is forming an exploratory committee for a senate run. Firms like Goldman Sachs, previously headed by Paulson, were instrumental through their lobbies to start the ball rolling for the whole economic scandal. After supposedly attending the Bilderberg meeting in 2008, Obama started getting 4x the wallstreet and goldman sachs money that McCain did. (don't feel like citing, look it up) I knew the whole time that Obama was not going to put any dent in the problems the country and world are having, but after last summer I knew that he was going to win the election, and at the same time quell the rebellious public, who would have largely been outraged by a McCain win. I remember last August, knowing I couldn't vote Ron Paul, saying that I hope Obama wins so that the base that was hopeful he would bring real change would be so disgusted and outraged in their selection that they would take personal responsibility to research their candidates deeply and perhaps become more personally active in the process. I still hope this is what happens. Obama is nothing more than the Ronald McDonald of the "new world order". It's time people take responsibility for the state of their nation and quit leaving change up to the "politicians".