Pelosi Presses For Truth Commission


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pressed the case for creation of a special “truth commission” to investigate the interrogation of terror suspects during the Bush administration. The California Democrat said several House committees already are examining the issue amid concerns that brutal tactics were used. But in a roundtable meeting Wednesday with reporters, she suggested “it might be further useful to have such a commission so that it removes all doubt that how we protect the American people is in a values-based way.”

Good on speaker Pelosi. Speaking for me only

< Fidel Says No To Liberty In Cuba | The Secretary Of State Answering Congressional Critics Of the Obama Administration >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Her comments are very limp and I think she's (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by imhotep on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 05:42:10 PM EST
    speaking because of political pressure, especially if other House committees are looking into this.
    This is a very hot story even in the MSM.  

    Remember she refused to bring impeachment proceedings against Bushco, claiming more important matters and that it would take all the media spotlight. There was little support for it in Congress although much support on the blogs.

    Pelosi isn't one to stir up controversy.  

    It will be interesting to learn how many (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Green26 on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 05:44:00 PM EST
    times she was briefed on the interrogation techniques and progress, and how many times she sat there and remained silent.

    Gosh (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by kmblue on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 05:46:38 PM EST
    I thought it was more important to punish who authorized 'em.  Silly me.

    Turley says..... (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by trillian on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 06:01:12 PM EST
    Well, it's probably better than nothing (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 08:22:08 PM EST
    but what I really want is a prosecutor with a Grand Jury.

    It's interesting (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by joanneleon on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 10:41:31 PM EST
    that she calls for a Truth commission instead of joining in with the calls for an independent special prosecutor.  Having a prosecutor would take the load off of Congress, I assume.  Given the workload on her plate right now, I would think she'd prefer a prosecutor.  But with a prosecutor, she would have to testify under oath.

    Bingo (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 10:23:45 AM EST
    She knew, she approved it and now she's pretending that her and all the other D's on these committe's had nothing to do with this.

    Nobody on in D.C. wants the truth to come out.  This is all political theatre for the left.


    most truth commissions... (1.00 / 0) (#11)
    by diogenes on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 11:19:02 PM EST
    Most truth commissions don't prosecute if done effectively (as in South Africa), instead giving immunity in exchange for the truth.  Since no one here is calling for that, I suspect that this whole call for prosecutors is a desire to put Republicans on trial for political gain.  And the talk of testifying under oath makes me suspect that people just want prisoners even without crimes (as Libby convicted for lying about outing Plame but no one was ever convicted for actually outing her).  

    I want Republicans who authorized torture (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 11:56:07 PM EST
    at a policy level to be put in jail. Yes, a truth commission is probably incompatible with that idea.

    The truth is a beginning though (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 10:43:26 AM EST
    and perhaps more can and will come of it with the revealing.  Vietnam was full of horror, abuse, human suffering and degradation and we had to settle for mostly discovering the truth there too.......well that and dealing with and living with what was left of the sanity of our sons and some of our daughters who were the "veterans" of what happened and the choices made in our names.

    I hope Pelosi and her fellow democrats (1.00 / 0) (#16)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 10:19:23 AM EST
    plan to testify on what they knew.

    "It was not necessary to release details of the enhanced interrogation techniques, because members of Congress from both parties have been fully aware of them since the program began in 2002. We believed it was something that had to be done in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to keep our nation safe. After many long and contentious debates, Congress repeatedly approved and funded this program on a bipartisan basis in both Republican and Democratic Congresses. . . . I have asked Mr. Blair to provide me with a list of the dates, locations and names of all members of Congress who attended briefings on enhanced interrogation techniques."

    This from the WSJ - Pete Hokestra (R)

    This silly 20/20 hinsight 7 years later by the left is a waste of time and the political grandstanding now by Pelosi and Lehey is laughable.

    Nothing will come of this and nothing should.  Dems will drag this out to keep a minority on the left happy but getting to the bottom of this will lead us all to the fact that our entire government was on board with this because the American people demanded it and now that it worked we don't want to do it anymore.

    the American people (none / 0) (#19)
    by CST on Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 10:26:51 AM EST
    did not demand it.

    I do not recall anyone asking me.  It was done on our behalf by some people who thought they "knew better".

    And yes, if Pelosi etc... pushed for this than they should face the music.  That's why a special prosecuter is needed more than a congressional "truth commission".


    Well (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 01:29:43 PM EST
    You could say that about any undertaking done by Congress (or POTUS, for that matter) - it's why we have a representative government.  Conservatives could argue that "no one asked them" about raising the minimum wage, or business regulations, or about the stimulus package.

    And I absolutely believe Pelosi et al knew about this and either overtly or tacitly approved, so I agree with you that a special prosecutor is needed.  But (and someone help me, I can't believe I'm saying this), I agree with Cheney that ALL the memos need to be released - not just selective ones that push a certain agenda.  And then ALL those responsible need to be held accountable (and yes, that would include Nancy and Harry).


    well (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by CST on Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 01:46:18 PM EST
    I would say some people campaigned on raising the minimum wage - so the people that demanded it voted for it.

    No one campaigned on torture.

    However, I would also not, that I didn't say the "American people demanded a raise in the minimum wage" since I just don't think it's true.  I know we have a representative gov't but that doesn't mean they always do what the people "demand".

    Sure all the memos need to be released, just to see who knew exactly what.  However, I strongly disagree with Cheney that finding out whether or not it "worked" is relevant to the discussion.


    Yeah, okay (none / 0) (#4)
    by david mizner on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 06:00:42 PM EST
    If the speaker comes forward and acknowledges her guilt, I guess she doesn't have to do prison time.


    Truth Commission? (none / 0) (#6)
    by ericinatl on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 07:46:50 PM EST
    How very Orwellian.  Anything called a Truth Commission will be anything but.

    Do people really think the US has never used torture before?  Why are we going through this charade?

    Put Mike Gravel on the Commission. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 08:19:49 PM EST

    Use Immunity... (none / 0) (#9)
    by mike in dc on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 10:01:48 PM EST
    ...killed Lawrence Walsh's investigation and prosecution of Iran-Contra principals.  Nobody at or above the rank of Cabinet undersecretary or senior WH staff should be given use immunity...no doubt there are lesser participants who were present at meetings of the principal decision-makers.
    I'm for whatever keeps this process in motion a few more months before Holder finally relents and appoints a special prosecutor.  If there's a spec prosecutor appointed after there's a ton of evidence in the public sphere implicating Rummy, Gonzo, Cheney, Wolfie, Addington, (possibly) Condi and Colin, Tenet, and of course Dubya, then that prosecutor's job becomes a little easier.  And the public is better prepared for the likely indictment of the former Vice President and President of the United States.  

    Good on her IF (none / 0) (#14)
    by BobTinKY on Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 09:44:48 AM EST
    establishment of the Commission does not preclude prosecution of individuals for whatever criminal acts the Commission uncovers.  it is intended to set up an alternative form of justice for high level politcos, no way.  The only grant of immunity anyone involved should be offered should come from a prosecutor and should be a reward for testimony.

    Truth is good, let's get on with it (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 10:09:52 AM EST
    Three things cannot be hidden long:  the sun, the moon, and the truth.  At least that's what that Buddha dude seemed to think.

    True (none / 0) (#17)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 10:21:14 AM EST
    and the truth as I posted before is the entire gov't was on board with this program.

    Now the political gaming will start so that dems can try and convince us that only repubs where the torturers not them.

    What a bunch of hooey.


    I always figured that was the hold up (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 10:34:23 AM EST
    obviously you did too.