Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Let’s Have a Congressional Vote on the Truth Commission

By

Cross-posted in the usual places.

According to the Washington Post, President Obama is opposed to a “truth commission.”

In a lengthy exchange with House  Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), Obama appeared to back away from a statement earlier this week that suggested he could support an independent commission to examine possible abuses, according to several attendees who spoke on the condition of anonymity so they could discuss the private meeting freely. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, also seeking to clarify the president’s position, told reporters that “the president determined the concept didn’t seem altogether workable in this case” because of the intense partisan atmosphere built around the issue.

“The last few days might be evidence of why something like this might just become a political back and forth,” Gibbs said.

But Speaker Pelosi supports such a commission.

At almost the same time at another briefing across the Capitol, Pelosi told reporters that she has “always been for a truth commission,” a position she reiterated at the White House meeting, one participant in the session said.

But a White House official present at the meeting said Obama told lawmakers that a commission would “open the door to a protracted, backward-looking discussion.”

Minority Leader John Boehner just wants to be a pain.

Boehner also urged Obama to release further classified memos detailing the questionable interrogation techniques. Former vice president Richard B. Cheney has argued that the memos will make clear that aggressive tactics yielded valuable intelligence information that prevented further terrorist attacks.

Obama responded that Cheney had done “a good job at telling his side of the story,” according to Democrats and Republicans in the room. “Obama said the memos weren’t as clear-cut,” one attendee said.

Fortunately, we have a mechanism for such disagreements.

Let’s have a full vote of both houses of Congress to see if we should create a truth commission.

I would support it. I take the president’s point, but the president is, well, president and no longer objective on the question of executive power. His reluctance could be as benevolent as protecting CIA morale, but he has a conflict that hinders his objectivity.

Follow your instincts, Madame Speaker. You’re for it, a lot of your members are for it. Bring it to the floor.

Advantages

– The obvious one: attaining the truth

– Transparency in government, a “cleansing” moment for us and the world

– Removal of the opposition’s ability to call this a dance between Obama and Pelosi, as if they never intended to have one

– Removal of pressure on the attorney general to prosecute or not to prosecute (at minimum, it buys time)

– Removal of similar pressure on the Congress and the Obama administration

Maybe someone can tell me what the disadvantages are. I can’t think of any.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Emphasis in original:

    <

    p>

    The inability of so many people (both Republicans and Obama-loyal Democrats) to view the need for prosecutions independent of political considerations is a potent sign of how sick our political culture has become.  The need for criminal investigations is motivated by one simple, consummately apolitical fact: serious and brutal crimes were committed at the highest levels of the government, ones that left a trail of many victims.  A country that purports to live under the rule of law has no choice but to treat its most powerful members who commit serious crimes exactly the same as ordinary citizens who do so.  That has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats.

    It has to do with the most central premise of the American system of government:  that we are a nation of laws, not men, and all are equal before the law.  People like John McCain argue that only “banana republics” prosecute former political leaders, but the reality is exactly the opposite.  As the Western world has spent decades pointing out, the hallmark of an under-developed, tyrannical society is the very same premise we have embraced:  that political elites are free to break the law with impunity and never suffer the consequences that ordinary citizens do.

    • I expect a “Truth Commission” to start with the outcome, justify it, and publish the falsehoods.  Too much political power is at stake to get truth.  

      <

      p>It has always been the case.  We may even recall incidents in our great commonwealth. We do not live under the rule of law.  We live under the rule of men.  Who hasn’t heard, “Do you know who I am?!!”  

  2. Maybe someone can tell me what the disadvantages are. I can’t think of any.

    <

    p>Here’s one: the majority of voters may find “a truth commission” to be just a Democratic power play which turns them off and creates a tsunami of GOP gains in 2010.  The political risks are HUGE.  

    <

    p>That sure could make “truth hearings” look more like a Kafkaesque Stalin show trial to the average voter.  Progressives and liberals are the ones clamoring for these hearings, but progressives and liberals do not represent the sentiments of the closely packed, middle 30% of the voter bell curve.

    <

    p>I know you will howl that crimes were committed, and my arguments are political.  Considering it’s Congress doing the truthing, it IS political.

    <

    p>And what about Nancy Pelosi, who was briefed on waterboarding, although she denies it.  Didn’t Congress have the chance to define waterboarding as torture, but instead didn’t?

    <

    p>With the ruins of the WTC still smoldering, the people demanded everything be done to protect them and prevent another attack.  They got what they asked for.

    <

    p>Let’s see what they say now when you change the rules of the game retroactively, and criminalize past political policy.  Especially when you increase future risks by removing the tools available to glean information from our enemies.  This case can be made, and will be made.

    • If there are people in Congress that think waterboarding or anything else is a vital tool then it is incumbent upon them to change the law to explicitly allow such things, clearing any ambiguity in the current law.

    • Didn’t she learn anything from Sen Dodd about lying when there is proof to the contrary. I wish she would go away.

          • I’m not sure what “digging herself in deeper” means to those who do not speak the Secret Wingnut Language. Yes, wingnuts hate Pelosi. The latest polling, where they ask all Americans not just wingnuts, gives

            Person
            Favorable
            Unfavorable

            Pelosi
            37%
            44%

            Reid
            34%
            48%

            McConnell
            22%
            58%

            Boehner
            17%
            61%

            Pelosi is twice as popular as Boehner. Oh, and 70% disapprove of Congressional Republicans.

            <

            p>70%.

            <

            p>I can lend you a shovel.

            • According to what I’ve read (both bostonshepard’s blog link and some coverage in the Washington Post), Pelosi (the top Democrat on the Senate House Intelligence Committee in 2002) was definitely at an hour-long meeting in 2002 when waterboarding was discussed.  Some (Republians) say waterboarding was described in detail and everyone in attendance understood it was to be used in “extreme” cases; Some (Pelosi) say it was discussed but she doesn’t recall ever agreeing to it or understanding that it would be used.  Unless you were at the meeting, your opinion on what really happened is likely to break along party/ideological lines.

              <

              p>Pelosi makes a very fine distinction between “I knew it was legally approved” and “I didn’t know we were doing it.”  Why, exactly, did she think the CIA and administration sought legal approval for the technique?  I haven’t seen any evidence that, upon learning waterboarding was legally okay, she opposed it or expressed concern it might be used.  Admittedly, I haven’t read everything, so if there is evidence of this, I’d love to see it.

              <

              p>I don’t think even a truth commission would help here.  Get them all under oath and I still think Pelosi will continue to maintain that knowing the administration and CIA got legal approval to waterboard is much different than knowing we were doing it.  Meanwhile, Republicans will claim she absolutely knew it was being done.  And, depending what your political leanings are, you’ll beleive one side or the other.  

                • but what is the point of the testifying? Is there any decision on what exactly they are trying to determine? Is water-boarding legal? Was it legal? Was support for water-boarding bipartisan? Did Pelosi lie during the recent press conference (like Sen Dodd)? Did Bush/Cheney get bad legal advice? Do we prosecute the AG if he makes a mistake on legal advice? What EXACTLY is it we are trying to find out?

                • Does JohnD abuse his kids?  Is he really a drug addict?  Is there anything he types that isn’t written by somebody else?  Why is he here?  What is the point of inane speculation?

                • I’m sure you wanted to stop the Tea Party protests too. You appear to be one of the “silence anything you don’t want to hear” brigade. Why are you so filled with hatred? I thought it was us ringwingers that were suppose to be full of hatred/anger but it appears you and yours have drank from the cup of El Diablo. You want blood… Bush’s, Chaney’s, Romney’s… maybe even mine.

                  <

                  p>I don’t like you or most anything you stand for, both personally and ideologically. But I would never want you silenced, either here on BMG, out on the street, at a political rally or behind a microphone on TV.

                  <

                  p>When MCRD said “Time for Pelosi to appear and testify under oath” and Farnkoff replied “Right after Cheney”, I said maybe they both should… depending on what exactly we are trying to find out. Then I asked a few hypos. Did “that” encourage you to make assertions about abusing my kids, being a drug addict, plagiarizing… What the fuck is wrong with you? Did you skip some meds? Rather than have you reenter psychiatric counseling, please stop reading my replies if they cause such a hateful inflammatory response.

                  <

                  p>Otherwise, let’s bury the hatchet. I’ll treat you to dinner at Massimino’s… I’ll make reservations đŸ™‚

                • I’m glad you found my example hypotheticals about you offensive.  As the title should have told you, they were meant to be.  Slander is offensive.

                  <

                  p>In any given one of your posts you make up things, either about government officials ,or about the people posting.  In this most recent post, it’s me wanting people silenced, me being on meds, etc. In the post I replied to you accuse Pelosi of lying.  No evidence at all.  It’s slander.  Most people would be embarrassed.  

                  <

                  p>You, on the other hand, keep using “John Edward’s Love Child” to justify  outrageous lies about people.  

                  <

                  p>Think about it.

                  <

                  p>

                • until “Then I asked a few hypos” and after that, it got quite ugly.  Personally, I think you swing between troll and interesting moderate depending on your mood.

                • when huh brings my family/kids into the argument or mentions drug addiction? Would you get a little twisted if I mentioned a few things (insulting things) about you (which are totally not true… don’t even know you) to make an point.

                  <

                  p>I’m not pussing out on this but if I mentioned some (questionable, non-PC) things on a post about huh (even in the manner huh did), I would probably get banned from BMG. I would just like a fair playing field.

                • What did I say about your drug addiction? And why is any comment or complaint, justified or not from me classified as a “whine” to you.

                  <

                  p>You are the one who has been very nasty huh, very nasty. Please try to clean it up before they “shut you down”. I’m hoping they don’t so please tone down the “bigoted -asshole”, moron… names you have been throwing out there at me? Thanks!

                • You don’t seem to have followed huh’s logic, but you do seem to have devoted many words to your misunderstanding and your “emotion” about it.

                  <

                  p>The point is that making reckless accusations about Pelosi based on your anti-Pelosi zealotry alone is almost as reckless as someone making reckless accusations about you.

                  <

                  p>Again: your making reckless accusations does not keep BMG from being an echo chamber.

                  <

                  p>It does not keep us “honest”.

                  <

                  p>It does not heighten anyone’s respect for conservatives.

                • Can someone give me “6”? Oh, too late. Surprise, surprise huh has given KBusch another “6”. Don;t they have rules about 2 people juicing up eh other’s ratings? Are you two ranking members of the Mutual Admiration Society?

                  <

                  p>Jeesh! Are you seriously saying that when Nancy Pelosi denies ever hearing about anyone being water-boarded and there are reports from Republicans who were at the same meeting saying actual water-boarding was discussed… that I am making a “reckless accusation”? Are you serious? How many issues are discussed on this site which have some facts on either side and then we all chime in with our opinions?

                  <

                  p>Why is it so “unbelievable” that she may be lying or misremembering and that the Republicans who were also at the same meeting are telling the truth. Maybe if there wasn’t a shred of evidence saying Pelosi was at the meetings and heard the details, I could buy your description of a “reckless accusation”… maybe. And I’m sure I could find many “reckless accusations” against conservative and Republican politicians on this site if I looked. Surely you know this.

                  <

                  p>None of this can defend huh’s statement that I abuse my children. Surely a principled person like yourself may say huh was speaking metaphorically, but chose a bad metaphor. First she can’t admit being wrong about Massimino’s and now she won’t say she chose a bad example (abusing my kids and me being a drug addict) so maybe I’m not the one who can’t admit to being wrong.

                • Story

                  <

                  p>

                  “All of this information was downloaded to congressional leaders of both parties with no objections being raised,” House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told reporters today, specifically citing Pelosi as someone who received the briefings. “Not a word was raised at the time, not one word.”

                  <

                  p>And this

                  <

                  p>

                  In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

                • What EXACTLY is it we are trying to find out?

                  <

                  p>We’re trying to find out if laws were broken, and if so, who broke them. Perhaps you’ve heard the phrase “a nation of laws, not men.”

                • Dear JimC… if you read many of my posts you’ll find out I am very much in favor of people following our laws. All of our laws! And when they don’t, I want those lawbreakers to pay the price by fines and incarceration. One of the few exceptions I have are areas of national security. Was it legal for President Truman to drop the atomic bomb on two Japanese cities filled with civilians? Was it legal for President Lincoln to suspend Habeas Corpus? Did President Franklin Roosevelt break the law with the internment of 120,000 Japanese Americans?

                  <

                  p>These Presidents did things to keep our country safe and helped it survive. I like laws but I like America more. If it takes breaking laws at the highest level of office in this country in severe instances to keep our country safe, then I am for it. Whether Lincoln, Roosevelt… Bush, Omama or future President Romney break the law to keep us safe then I would support it and I believe most Americans would as well. If we gave truth serum to a captured terrorist and he told us where the dirty bomb was hidden in  NYC and saved 2,000,000 lives then Americans would overwhelmingly support the measure (or any breaking of laws to get that information). Maybe 50 years later when the threat was gone a bipartisan commission would find this was a terrible thing and the then President should never have done it… but much like Lincoln we would look right past the law breaking and remember him for the incredible President he was… maybe put his picture on our money and carve his face into a mountain (with 2 former slave owners and T.R.).

                • Which laws?
                  I don’t know, honestly.

                  <

                  p>> Was it legal for President Truman to drop the atomic
                  > bomb on two Japanese cities filled with civilians?
                  It was neither “legal” (though law in wartime is a pretty vague area) nor necessary. Ever heard the term firestorm? The New Yorker had an article years ago describing literal firestorms. Essentially, you start several fires in parts of a city, and they come together and destroy it. So the bomb was not as sui generis as is usually thought, widespread destruction was already available. There were other ways to defeat Japan that were just as cruel in the short term but would have less lasting damage.

                  <

                  p>But, far be it from me to judge Truman. Would I have dropped the bomb? Probably.

                  <

                  p>> Was it legal for President Lincoln to suspend
                  > Habeas Corpus?
                  Yes, I believe it was. I could be wrong though.

                  <

                  p>> Did President Franklin Roosevelt break the law with
                  > the internment of 120,000 Japanese Americans?
                  Probably, though he may have been covered under the same “commander in chief” provisions that I think covered Lincoln.

                • For what it is worth, I do think thee should be an investigation into the “torture” issue, albeit not on MSNBC. A bipartisan committee should uncover every aspect of the issue and NOT use it for political fodder. Is this possible? Could Democratic participants under Pelosi contain any dirt they uncover… I honestly doubt it but I could still support some type on investigation (maybe under DOJ).

              • The perpetrators of these crimes should be identified and prosecuted. If Ms. Pelosi is in that group, then I think she should be prosecuted as well.

                <

                p>What I “believe” doesn’t matter; what matters is what the evidence shows. Crimes were committed, and I don’t care about the party affiliation of the perpetrators, accessories, and corroborators.

                <

                p>If that means that Ms. Pelosi is prosecuted, then so be it.

                <

                p>America does not torture, and no one is above the law.

            • As for the popularity race… it appears that my thoughts from the last year+ or so about Americans hating our Congressional leaders has not changed much. There should be no solace that Americans hate your guys less than they hate my guys. I would refer they are all thrown out.

              <

              p>As for polls…

              <

              p>Rasmussen says Congressional Favorability Ratings

              <

              p>Member of Congress  Favorable  Unfavorable

              <

              p>Nancy Pelosi                      34%                60%
              Harry Reid                         29%                45%
              Mitch McConnell                 29%                31%
              John Boehner                     28%                34%

              <

              p>And if you really believe in polls… I have some more coming.

              <

              p>

    • then surely the perpetrators should be prosecuted.

      <

      p>Of course the process is imperfect, and of course there will be political posturing on both sides. So be it. It’s the best system humankind has invented so far.

      <

      p>The rightwing wing asks us, even now, to perpetuate the same callous disregard for everything America stands for that so dominated the prior administration. Never mind that such disregard conveniently lets the perpetrators and those who enabled them (on both sides of the aisle) off the hook — the point is that crimes were committed.

      <

      p>The rightwing eagerly prosecuted a sitting president for perjury (significantly, a charge that was found to be unsubstantiated). Surely the crimes against humanity that we now know were committed in accordance with formal written policy merit a correspondingly stronger response.

      <

      p>I like Trickle up’s suggestion that we give Americans more time to absorb the extent and implications of these crimes. I think that a full, measured, and public presentation of the evidence will demonstrate the guilt of the perpetrators. In my view, that demonstration will be the most devastatingly effective argument in favor of this prosecution.

      <

      p>Which, in my opinion, is the real explanation for why the GOP so stridently opposes them.

      • And if it is apparent that we have sustained massive casualties because of the likes of Napolitano and Pelosi, I don’t want investigations–I want arrests—massive arrests and criminal prosecutions for conspiracy.

        <

        p>It’s gonna happen—the difference is will it be thousands of casualties or hundreds of thousands.

        • If the only way to “protect” America is to torture, then the war is already lost — we have nothing left to protect.

        • …if you want to arrest and prosecute, don’t you need investigations to determine whom to arrest and prosecute?

        • In the unlikely event Napolitano and Pelosi were the ones attacking the country and causing thousands of casualties, yes, they should be arrested.

          <

          p>However, no one can be arrested under our constitutional form of government for stupid policy.

          <

          p>Otherwise, Bush and Brownie would be behind bars, no?

    • There’s a very interesting diary on Daily Kos on this called Defending Torture Will Wreck the GOP. Prosecutions cause the flow of information to stop. A truth commission, or something like it, will keep information flowing. The diarist, “organicdemocrat”, argues that the ongoing torture defense will keep Republicans on the defensive for a long time. You will notice that no prominent Republican has peeped a word of criticism about any Bush Administration official. In other words, they are still playing the role of embattled incumbents even after Bush left office. This could last a while. The positions they are taking are simply untenable and embarrassing.

      <

      p>From a purely Machiavellian calculation, this is a gold mine. It reduces the GOP’s ability to steer the debate, to bring up other issues, or to get its mighty messaging Wurlitzer humming. It makes it much easier to get universal healthcare through Congress.

      That said, I still think that prosecution is merited.

  3. Let’s let people process the facts we have. Let’s release more memos.

    <

    p>Let’s give Americans time to come to grips with the enormity of these crimes. Let’s see how people like being turned into the heavy in a B-movie, sneering “Ve haf ways of making you talk.”

    <

    p>Let’s not be silent in the mean time but also, let’s let events unfold.

    <

    p>Then in the fullness of time let Congress vote. Personally, though, I’m not going to be happy with a toothless “truth commission” for crimes that demand prosecution and prison.

  4. if he thinks that the Republican scumbags would hesitate, for even an instant, to halt the national progress in order to pursue allegations of misconduct against him if they had the numbers and were armed with evidence of some minor transgression. What Bush and Cheney did was very serious, and it is imperative that it be fully investigated. It shouldn’t even be a question- it shouldn’t really be up to Obama.

    • . The laundry list of possible offenses of the entire Obama administration are growing every day.

      • I think there’s a high degree of probability that it can be established that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Rove, et al can be directly tied with a long list of heinous high crimes.

        <

        p>I don’t think that stuff is happening, or will happen, under Obama.  If it does, send them to jail too.

        <

        p>Wrong is wrong, regardless who performs the misdeed.

    • Too much power is still in the hands of the perpetrators, enablers, conspirators and others to make any meaningful progress in the name of justice.  Remember, the apparatus that did the actions were often civil servants that go from one administration to the next.  If any hope exists for justice, it is with the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

  5. The Justice Department is expected to be above partisanship. The Bush Administration crossed that line, certainly, but that is the expectation.

    <

    p>If laws were broken, there should be prosecutions and convictions. Period. Full stop. End of story. That’s what equal protection under the law means.

    <

    p>If Holder cannot be impartial enough, the practice is to appoint someone who can be.

    <

    p>We will not retain our constitutional form of government if we are going to fret about how it makes Obama “look” or whether it hurts Republican sensibilities. This is the kind of stuff for which American patriots fought a Revolution.

  6. And if any member of Congress gave approval for this alleged “torture” or had knowledge of it then we should have grand juries, arrests, and imprisonment. That includes of course Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, Barney Frank as well as Bush/Cheney and their entire ilk.    

    • If Mr. Reid, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Obama, Mr. Biden, Mr. Schumer, or Mr. Frank is proven to have known about and not acted to prevent these crimes, then I agree they should be prosecuted as well.

      • The EXECUTIVE branch is responsible for seeing to it that the laws are faithfully EXECUTED, not the legislative branch.  We can coulda shoulda woulda this to death regarding holding hearings, withholding money, etc.  Remember, the Constitution protects members from being arrested for the discharge of their duties or from even being “questioned in any other place”.  Any consequences for members of Congress should be political, not criminal.

        • I use the term “prosecuted” to include impeachment. While I’ll duck the question of whether or not impeachment is a political process, it is analogous to indictment I treat it as synonymous.

          <

          p>My point is that we are a nation of laws, and I expect every public servant to be held accountable under the provisions of those laws.

          • Members of Congress are subject to expulsion by 2/3 of their own chamber rather than impeachment.  Either way it requires members to sit in judgement of their peers/colleagues, which I don’t see happening if everyone were as complicit in this as you suggest.  These are at best sins of omission as opposed to executive sins of commission and as much as they may make us cringe I can’t quite squeeze them into “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”.

  8. It’s a rare moment when I disagree with Atrios.

    <

    p>

    Right Track

    I was long somewhat puzzled by the extraordinarily bad “wrong track” numbers that pollsters would obtain during the last couple of years of the Bush administration. By puzzled I mean that I wasn’t exactly sure what was driving them. There were a bunch of possibilities, but I just wasn’t sure what the main answer was.

    Now that the right track numbers are pretty good again, despite all of the problems in the economy, I think we have our answer. People just couldn’t fucking stand George Bush.

  9. that the US is no longer a nation of laws or principles.
    That being said torture is only a diversion issue and lawyers are the latest professional group to be added to the 911truth list.  That is after all THE event that started the entire fascist police state in the first place.

    • We believe the government about 911, Kennedy assassination, Gulf of Tonkin attack.  Sure, we find it odd that in the Anthrax Case the White House staff was issued Cipro a couple weeks before the attack and that White House “enemies” were targeted.  Just coincidence, I’m sure. The government blamed a dead guy (he’s telling no tales) after a few false starts so all is copasetic.

      <

      p>Now, we’re on Emergency Mode due to Swine Flu.  Is this the same swine flu the the CDC has been working with for the last few years?  Digging up bodies to get the virus and all? (put this in your googler and smoke it!)  

      <

      p>Would our government people potentially kill millions to create a diversion to save themselves?   Wage bio-war on the people of the earth?  Of course they did release viruses in the NYC subway, but that was a while ago and I’m sure they’ve changed their habits…

      <

      p>Why do I feel we’re in for another Patriot Act rights denier law or worse?  Maybe I’m just paranoid.

Archives