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

Tue Jul 1 12:19:57 CDT 2008

I am unfamiliar with the actual statements referred to and do not know
exactly who made them; but I am sure that Durbin or his spokesperson or
staff member in making such a statement was talking loosely in using terms
like "illegal" or phrases like "going to jail."   If they were speaking
literally, then one has to ask if they were talking about revealing said
information outside of the chambers of the U.S. Senate, such as at a public
meeting in their district, a speech at a conference or college, on a radio
or television show, or in a press release. In said instances, they may be
correct.

I am not trying to justify Durbin or anyone else's covering up such
information or refusing to engage in whistle blowing on principle or as a
practical matter here.  I believe that Durbin and others are perfectly
capable of not revealing things that the public should know about and of
looking after their own interests over the public's interests.  I am just
questioning the contexts in which officials in Congress are protected from
legal actions for revealing information in speeches and those where they are
not as well as seeking to delineate the sorts of other sanctions that can be
brought against them of a legal nature within the operation of their
respective Congressional Chambers under the rules of that chamber and the
authority that its leadership has to assign seniority and committee
assignments.

From: Jenifer Cartwright [mailto:jencart13 at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 11:57 AM
To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; LAURIE
Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] DN!: Hersh: Congress Agreed to Bush Request...

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/msg0213
3.html>
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 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080701/4f128f8a/attachment.html