The Reach of Complicity

The Reach of Complicity
by Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith


What did Congressional Democrats know, and when did they know it?

Is it possible that many Democratic leaders have been informed by the Bush administration over the years about its doubtfully legal activities?

If so, are they therefore complicit in the Bush administration’s lawlessness?

It’s just been disclosed that Representative Jane Harmon and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were briefed by the Bush administration on the use of waterboarding. Harmon objected but Pelosi did not — and when she became speaker of the house, she rejected Harmon for chair of the House Intelligence Committee.

The Administration has frequently responded to charges of Executive usurpation by saying the Congressional leaders were fully briefed on such questionable practices as NSA surveillance, extraordinary rendition, and enhanced interrogation techniques.

And evidence is mounting that they were. According to the Washington Post, since 2002 leading Democrats lawmakers received “about 30 private CIA briefings, some of which included descriptions of waterboarding, overseas rendition sites, “and other harsh interrogation methods.” Officials present at some of the meetings, told the Post that the reaction from legislators “was not just approval, but encouragement.”

If so, it would answer one of the great mysteries of 2007. The Democrats, once in control of Congress, had the courage to pursue cutoff of funds for the Iraq war, even though the Bush administration was happy to take advantage of their effort by characterizing it as failure to support the troops. The obvious companion strategy would have been to conduct intensive investigations to show that the entire Bush project has been to subvert law and Constitutional government in the interests of aggrandizing power nationally and internationally.

But Congressional Democrats have systematically avoided serious investigation of Bush administration lawlessness, and so far have retreated from using the power of contempt when the Bush officials have refused to respond to subpoenas.

Could this be because some Democratic leaders in effect colluded in Bush administration crimes — knew about them but failed to report them?

more...

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/11/5763/

...and that it continues to work against any meaningful reforms, especially in foreign policy and the erosion of civil rights, but also many other areas. The status quo might be bad for the U.S. and the rest of the world, but it's good for most democratic leaders, so they work openly to prevent significant reform.

America needs a grassroots revolution.

That's critical because as of yesterday, Nancy Pelosi said that she was told that these techniques were being considered. She was never told they had been approved. Her rejection of Harmon for chair of the House Intelligence Committee was well-reported at the time and supposedly hand nothing to do with these issues.

It takes the notion of "Vichy Democrats" to a whole new level.

either comatose, complacent or complicit.
no one with a working conscience would approve or encourage this administration's policy on torture.

That includes Democrats.

Are there any Democrats courageous enough to stand up to their leaders?

We are ALL complicit.