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

Tue Jul 1 11:56:55 CDT 2008

At the time, as I recall, Durbin (or his spokesperson) said that if he'd blown the whistle, he could have gone to jail... tho' we all knew it was the other "j" word (his JOB) that he was really concerned about... Here's a link to Durbin's BS CYA response defending his silence  http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.music.gdead/2007-05/msg02133.html 
I was really upset at the time, and still am -- expected lots more from Durbin -- tho' doubtful that ANYTHING he (or anyone) said could have prevented the Iraq attack (other than, "There is no more oil in Iraq") -- since the admin was determined to find an excuse.
 --Jenifer 

--- On Tue, 7/1/08, LAURIE <LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET> wrote:

From: LAURIE <LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET>
Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] DN!: Hersh: Congress Agreed to Bush Request...
To: jencart13 at yahoo.com, peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Date: Tuesday, July 1, 2008, 6:51 AM

Despite the mentioned legal protections afforded members of Congress concerning speeches made in their respective chambers, members of Congress are not exempt from internal and/or political sanctions of loss of seniority, committee assignments, office facilities, and other organizational restrictions.  I am inclined to give those who said that it would have been illegal to reveal information gained from closed door sessions and under security clearances the benefit of the doubt and accept that they were using the term “illegal” loosely  in a general common everyday sense and not in a technical sense, suggesting that it would have violated agreements and chamber rules.

From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Jenifer Cartwright
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 12:17 AM
To: John W.; C. G. Estabrook
Cc: Peace-discuss List
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] DN!: Hersh: Congress Agreed to Bush Request...

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 PMYes.  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) entered4,100 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 notbe questioned in any other Place", thus the Senator could not be prosecutedfor anything said on the Senate floor, and, by extension, for anything entered to the Congressional Record, allowing the Papers to be publicly read withoutthreat of a treason trial and conviction.  "Later, Ellsberg said the documents 'demonstrated unconstitutionalbehavior 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 papersin 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 justificationfor>     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 "forany>     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 listPeace-discuss at lists.chambana.nethttp://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080701/390cae6c/attachment.htm