[Peace-discuss] DN!: Hersh: Congress Agreed to Bush Request...
C. G. Estabrook
galliher at uiuc.edu
Tue Jul 1 21:49:56 CDT 2008
Amen.
Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> Yeah yeah yeah, kind of you to cut the guy a bit of slack for all the
> good stuff... but this was starting a WAR, fer crissakes. Despite all
> the rationalizations and excuses at hand, how could anyone of conscience
> have remained silent?
>
> --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, 12:19 PM
>
> 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/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?
>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list