[Marxism] why Dems want to suppress PBS expose on Bush and torture

[Dbachmozart@xxxxxxx]

Clip of interview  with Glenn  Greenwald of salon.com and Scott Horton, an 
international human rights lawyer in  New York, an adjunct professor at 
Columbia 
Law School, and a contributor to  Harper's. 
SH: Well, let's just say, first of all, of all the major markets with PBS  
affiliates, only one couldn't find space to run this, and that, WETA in  
Washington DC. Now, arguably, I think of all the markets in the country, the 
one  
where there would be the highest demand to see this product, is in fact inside  
the Beltway in Washington, where you've got a large number of important Beltway 
 players actually appearing and speaking in the documentary. So, the 
explanation  that was given again was, well, we just don't have time until 
early next 
year,  and the CEO of WETA is Sharon Percy Rockefeller; she is the daughter of 
the  former Senator Percy from Illinois and the wife of Jay Rockefeller, the 
chairman  of the Senate Intelligence Committee, former ranking member of the 
Senate  Intelligence Committee. 
And I think it's no surprise to anyone that Senator Rockefeller would have  
great concerns about this documentary coming out because it relates to an issue 
 on which he is in a very uncomfortable position. He was a key member of the  
so-called Gang of Eight, the Congressional leaders. The Bush administration 
says  the Gang of Eight were fully briefed about all the highly coercive 
interrogation  techniques, and they acquiesced to them; they gave their 
approval. 
What we have  is some grumbling reservations from Rockefeller but it's very 
very 
clear that he  never defends it, that he never put up objections to anything, 
and in fact if we  wind up having a deep investigation of the whole torture 
scandal, as I think is  quite likely in the coming administration, one of the 
points of investigation is  going to be the behavior of Congressional 
leadership. Why were no objections  raised? Why were there no oversight 
hearings in any 
of this? Obviously, he's  going to be called to account for his management of 
the intelligence committee  process. And, so it seems interesting that his 
wife, the CEO of this station,  and this station is the only major player in 
the 
network that's saying no, they  don't have space for this documentary. 
GG: I've written a lot about the complicity on the part of Democratic  
Congressional leadership, as have you in many of these most controversial  
programs. 
In fact there was a Washington Post article that suggested  that early on, 
when Congressional Democrats were briefed on some of these  interrogation 
programs, that they not only passively consented but actively  encouraged the 
program to continue and gave their stamp of approval. You  interviewed the New 
Yorker report Jane Mayer about her book The Dark  Side, I guess, a couple of 
months 
ago, and one of the things that she  suggested was that the reason that 
Democrats in Congress were so reluctant to  investigate these matters - and in 
fact 
they aren't only not investigating, but  they're stifling an investigation, 
there passing laws to immunize prior  law-breaking and doing everything they 
can to conceal what it is that occurred -  her suggestion was that the reason 
that they're so motivated to avoid having all  of this come to light is because 
they're petrified that their own vital role in  enabling it all will come to 
light along with it, led by people like Jay  Rockefeller and Jane Harman and 
even Nancy Pelosi and some of these key leaders  in the Democratic leaders who 
were briefed in Congress. 
Do you agree that that's part of what has motivated Democrats to be less than 
 aggressive, to put it very generously, and even eager to prevent, to put it 
more  accurately, some of these investigations? 
SH: I think there's just no question about it. When you talk about the  
Congressional leadership of the Democrats, there's no question but that they're 
 
very very cold on this idea, and they're cold because it's going to embarrass  
the hell out of them. And in fact it may do worse than that. Jane Harman, was  
the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee; according to most of 
the  accounts I've heard - and we have to stress, we really don't know 
everything  that went on in this briefing process -- It's confidential, and we 
get 
competing  portraits of what happened repeatedly. The administration tells us, 
oh, they  signed off and wanted everything, and this is part of the DOJ 
investigation into  the Gonzales taking notes at the meeting in which he 
portrays the 
Democrats as  enthusiastically signing off on things. The Department of 
Justice suspects that  this was a forgery in fact, an after the fact account 
that 
doesn't square with  the facts. So we really do have to get to the bottom. But 
I 
think in any event,  it's certainly embarrassing to them, and this is the 
reason why they'd really  rather not go there, but we've got to strive... 
GG: But let me just interrupt you, because there are conflicting claims about 
 what took place, but what we know for certain is that they were in positions 
of  authority, they're on the intelligence committees which are charged with  
oversight of the intelligence communities, ensuring compliance with the law.  
What we know for certain is that they didn't do anything to use their 
position  of authority or their public platform to expose these illegal 
programs, to 
put a  stop to them in any way. At best, some of them voiced some ineffectual  
objections. At best, they did that in private. But they certainly knew the  
programs were continuing and did nothing to stop them. 
SH: That's correct. Now, what you'll hear from their apologists is, we were  
the minority, we didn't have the power to schedule and arrange hearings. And 
if  we'd pushed things, we were going to be voted down. So, frankly for us, 
this was  all a matter of information, that was it. I don't know, I think we 
need 
to have  a full, fair account of what happened come out, and probably that's 
going to  have to go through a commission, but I think the Republicans are 
right when they  say, you know, what the Democratic leadership did needs to 
fully 
exposed too if  there's going to be an inquiry. So I think they're raising 
that because they  want to block an inquiry, but I think the point is an 
absolutely fair, correct  point. It does need to be exposed.
full  --
<_http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/radio/2008/10/15/horton/index1.html_ 
(http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/radio/2008/10/15/horton/index1.html) >


 
 
 
âThe  great appear great to us only because we are on our knees. Let us  rise.
â

James Connolly
**************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination.  
Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out 
(http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002)
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu