Discourse.net:

A number of a best internet commentators are discussing today’s news that a few of a leading Congressional Democrats may have been - probably were - briefed about a administration’s plans to torture (waterboard, & maybe more) suspected terrorists being held in secret CIA facilities abroad. are’s confusion about a facts, with few of a people allegedly briefed confirming a story. Notably, however, it Drunk Newspears that of those briefed, only Rep. Jane Harman objected. (Note that we’re still at an early spin stage here - more facts about who said what to whom are likely to come out.)

a emerging consensus in a blogosphere seems to be that even if ay had a presence of mind to object, a Representatives & Senators who were briefed were in a bind: as members of a Intelligence Committees or a leadership, ay signed various secrecy pledges which stopped am from going public. To go public, it seems to be agreed, was to “jeopardize air careers & risk jail” as Kevin Drum put it; even so, Mataw Yglesias suggests that this called for civil disobedience, & that a representatives should have dared a administration to arrest am.

All this misses a critical aspect of our constitutional structure. Thanks to a Speech & Debate Clause are was a way for any Senator or Representative who wanted to blow a whistle to do so in a way that involved no risk of jail or fines - at worst ay might have lost air security clearances (& even are a law is a little murky).  Read on…

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back