[Peace-discuss] DN!: Hersh: Congress Agreed to Bush Request...

[C. G. Estabrook]

As Justice Scalia (sometimes) insists, the Constitution means what it says.


Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> When the story broke (w/in the last year or so) Durbin claimed it would 
> have been illegal for him to reveal that the evidence was bogus. And 
> today on DN!, there was another reference to the illegality of those 
> eight congresspersons' exposing the particulars of the covert operations 
> against Iran. (I didn't buy it w/ Durbin, nor do I w/ Pelosi, Reid et 
> al, but there does seem to be a loophole that needs closing). Those 
> involved w/ publishing the Pentagon Papers were taking a huge personal 
> and professional risk, but they were willing to risk everything for 
> their principles. Not so this lot, sad to say.
>  --Jenifer
> 
> 
> --- On *Mon, 6/30/08, C. G. Estabrook /<galliher at uiuc.edu>/* wrote:
> 
>     From: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu>
>     Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] DN!: Hersh: Congress Agreed to Bush
>     Request...
>     To: "John W." <jbw292002 at gmail.com>
>     Cc: "Peace-discuss List" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>     Date: Monday, June 30, 2008, 10:37 PM
> 
>     Yes.  That's how Daniel Ellsberg wanted to reveal the classified Pentagon 
>     Papers.  Senator Mike Gravel eventually did it.
> 
>     "On June 29, 1971, U.S. Senator Mike Gravel (Democrat, Alaska) entered
>     4,100 
>     pages of the Papers to the record of his Subcommittee on Public Buildings and 
>     Grounds. These portions of the Papers were subsequently published by Beacon 
>     Press... The importance of recording the Papers to the Congressional Record was
> 
>     that, Article I, Section 6 of the United States Constitution provides that
>     "for 
>     any Speech or Debate in either House, [a Senator or Representative] shall not
>     be 
>     questioned in any other Place", thus the Senator could not be prosecuted
>     for 
>     anything said on the Senate floor, and, by extension, for anything entered to 
>     the Congressional Record, allowing the Papers to be publicly read without
>     threat 
>     of a treason trial and conviction.
> 
>     "Later, Ellsberg said the documents 'demonstrated unconstitutional
>     behavior by a 
>     succession of presidents, the violation of their oath and the violation of the 
>     oath of every one of their subordinates', and that he had leaked the papers
>     in 
>     the hopes of getting the nation out of 'a wrongful war.'"
> 
>     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers
> 
> 
>     John W. wrote:
>     > 
>     > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 9:56 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu 
>     > <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu>> wrote:
>     > 
>     >     In fact it would have been perfectly legal for members of Congress
>     >     "to squeal about those secret operations [or] for Durbin et al.
>     to
>     >     divulge that they knew the 'evidence' given for justification
>     for
>     >     attacking Iraq was bogus" on the floor of the House or Senate. 
>     The
>     >     Constitution specifically says of members of Congress in the
>     "Speech
>     >     or Debate Clause" (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1) that "for
>     any
>     >     Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in
>     >     any other Place." --CGE
>     > 
>     > 
>     > I don't understand.  Our legislators can talk about classified matters
> 
>     > of national security on  the floor of the House or Senate?
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Peace-discuss mailing list
>     Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>     http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss