Courtwatch
May 14, 2009 2:05 PM

Pelosi Palaver

By
Andrew Cohen
Topics
Torture Memos
4876687
Let's assume the worst about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her rough re-entry into the national debate over Bush Administration torture tactics. Even though she vigorously disputes this, let's assume that she knew back in 2002 that the Central Intelligence Agency was performing water-boarding and other "enhanced" interrogation tactics upon terror suspects. Let's assume Rep. Pelosi said nothing for years even as those policies crumbled under the weight of their own illegalities and immoralities.

This makes her a hypocrite, a coward and probably a liar (not exactly a new or rare trifecta in Washington). It neutralizes her as a weapon the Democrats may choose to employ as some (but not all) Republicans eagerly seek to distance themselves from the disastrous policy. It paints her as part of the problem and not part of the solution, which is the kinder way of saying what many GOP leaders were saying about Pelosi as the week wore on. It also helps educate us all about the routine interaction between parties on sensitive intelligence matters.

But what Pelosi's complicit silence does not do is exonerate the men who drafted the torture memos and the men and women who authorized them to do so. Their degree of culpability for this mess is an order of magnitude more profound than is Pelosi's. She did not conjure up the dangerous legal theories used by John Yoo, Jay Bybee, Alberto Gonzales, and Steven Bradbury to justify the shift in policy. She didn't decide to call off FBI interrogators (whom we now know were successful) and replace them with dark CIA operatives (whom we now know were not).

She didn't allow the men who wrote or authorized those memos to remain in their positions-- or even to gain promotion—in the Bush Administration. She didn't publicly label the soldier-guards at Abu Ghraib as rogues and renegades even as she knew they were just following orders. She should have done more, she could have done more, but many others did far, far worse and have yet to be held to account. She's the tail, not the dog.

Yet whom did Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) threaten to call before the Senate Judiciary Committee to answer questions about torture? Not Yoo, Bradbury, Bybee or Gonzales. Not Dick Cheney or David Addington. Not any of the other architects of torture-- but Pelosi, as if she were the ringleader of the whole mess. For a man whose own hands are stained by poor choices in the terror law field—he's part of the reason why the government has been unable to successfully prosecute a single Guantanamo Bay detainee—it was a startlingly cynical thing to do, even by the sad standards of our time.

In fact, the whole debate has devolved into a cynicism and partisanship that belies the importance of the topic. It's got to stop. The truth about the Bush-era torture policy is more important that the political careers of any of these people, including the President. Yet what did Barack Obama do this week instead of encouraging the Congress to get to the core of the torture story? He backtracked on an important symbolic promise to allow the release of controversial detainee photographs—passing the buck to the federal courts to make the final call—even as he was said to be pouring over legal opinions written by Supreme Court nominees. That's not nearly good enough.

Nor is it good enough for Pelosi to continue to trash the CIA as a way of dealing with her own complicity in the affair. Instead, she should declare that she'll be first in line to testify before any such torture commission and will do all in her power to make sure that one gets created. Think that's going to happen? Me neither.




(CBS)
Andrew Cohen is CBS News' Chief Legal Analyst and Legal Editor. CourtWatch is his new blog with analysis and commentary on breaking legal news and events. For columns on legal issues before the beginning of this blog, click here.


Add a Comment See all 17 Comments
by maryphillips May 21, 2009 5:21 PM EDT
I do believe thas Speaker Pelosi knew about the waterboarding and for whatever reason decided to deny it, and now she is in to deep to recant. America knew that this torture was taking place and I believe that no one cared about those who had murdered our fellow citizens. I still do not care, and I do believe that useful information was obtained by sticking their heads under water. This whole issue needs to come to a stop since all that is happening now is a political free-for-all. That is what is making us look bad now.
Reply to this comment
by noloyalisti May 18, 2009 4:28 PM EDT
At the time the arrogant Bush Crime Family was breaking the laws of the land, they had their pit bull Turdblossom Rove doing hatchet jobs on anyone who dissented.
Reply to this comment
by p_syrus May 16, 2009 7:39 PM EDT
Open Public Inquiry into the Authorization & Use of Torture by the Bush Administration will sort everything out.
Reply to this comment
by noloyalisti May 15, 2009 9:21 PM EDT
Pelosi had no say even if she knew. Anyone who opposed the Bush Crime Family at the peak of their power was ruined by them.

We all know that torture are acts of terrorism, that is what many Americans appear to have agreed to. What is important to find out is who set the policy and who carried it out. The law was broken and that is the bottom line.
Reply to this comment
by glenncinca-2009 May 15, 2009 12:40 PM EDT
SusanStoHelit and others of her bleeding-heart liberal ilk overlook a rather obvious fact. The CIA had to resort to EIT's precisely BECAUSE standard methods did NOT work.

No sane person of any political stripe actually wants to water board anyone. There are plenty of more pleasant interrogation techniques to try. But it is when those have been tried again and again without results that the CIA had to resort to enhanced techniques. Had they not, they would have put all of our lives in jeopardy. Fortunately, they did what was necessary, and kept us safe from further terrorist attacks ever since 9-11.
Reply to this comment
by chriscriley May 14, 2009 10:09 PM EDT
The Author here is entitled to his own opinions, but not to his own facts. Exactly what is the proof that the "soft" methods of the FBI were effective, while the "torture" used by the CIA was not? Where is the proof of a connection between the CIA and the abuse of the prisoners in Iraq?

A fact cannot be created by assertion. This is something that could have learned in Journalism or law school. Sadly, the ends justify the means for CBS
Reply to this comment
by SusanStoHelit May 14, 2009 9:11 PM EDT
Torture does not work - that IS what the experts say.

Doesn't matter if it's used on good guys, or bad guys who would like to kill us all in our sleep - it DOES NOT WORK. Simple as that. Testimony from interrogation experts in the CIA today said how they were getting information with the classical techniques, valuable information - then another agency took over, used torture - no usable information extracted. Switched back - information flow resumed. Torture - no more info. Same information from Interrogation experts in Iraq - face it - it does not work.

That is what the experts say - not to mention common sense (no reason to tell your enemy the truth when they are hurting you).

It's simple - all civilized nations didn't give up torture simply because they became civilized - they gave up torture because it doesn't work.
Reply to this comment
by glenncinca-2009 May 14, 2009 8:16 PM EDT
SusanStoHelIt wrote:
"...torture has been found, over and over again, to NOT WORK! Use the methods that work, not the ones that have always failed."

So since exactly when has ms. Susan become an expert on the effectiveness of water boarding? What studies is she citing to support her assertion? What are the incentives that "work" on an Islamic extremist terrorist I wonder... a nice cup of hot tea? A roomful of virgins? Lots of money? A pat on the back from a prominent Democrat? Candy? Flying lessons?

C'mon lady, wake up. These terrorists want nothing more than to kill you and all your loved ones.
Reply to this comment
by SusanStoHelit May 14, 2009 7:24 PM EDT
OneAmerican (your questions belie your name - America is a nation of LAW) - in those 6 hours, I'd go for the most effective techniques - and torture has been found, over and over again, to NOT WORK! Use the methods that work, not the ones that have always failed.

Torture needs to be investigated, all those who were complicit need to be prosecuted to the degree they were involved. It does not matter what political party they are a part of. This is not about partisanship nor revenge, this is about illegal and foolish torture. Likely, given the recent testimony about how torture was used again and again, even after it failed to provide results, it was always about trying to fake info to link AlQueda to Saddam, even after every bit of true evidence showed how they were enemies (Saddam had a secular country - AlQueda HATED him, a Muslim betraying the cause).
Reply to this comment
by toldyouso29 May 14, 2009 7:18 PM EDT
Let?s have a hearing and get it all out there, shall we? Then watch the rats scatter who attacked Bush for protecting the country from terrorist attack? but who clearly knew what was going on five years before we heard a peep out of them.
-
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/
Posted by reaganitegop at 2:21 PM : May 14, 2009


YES!!!! Let's whack the craaap out of the rats who onlooked, knew and said nothing. And after that, let's take the chief rats who thought of, defended and egged on the entire mess and turn ALL of them over to the Hague for D-con. Because the fact is, that with the exception of Lieberman, most Dems were reduced to reluctant partners or scared witnesses--and the evil that was created and nurtured will bring down most of the Republican leadership.

In the immortal words of our former FUBAR Pres Dubya, extraordinaire: 'BRING IT ON"
Reply to this comment
See all 17 Comments
.

Follow Courtwatch

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook