A group of about 30 protesters, who are part of the group Witness Against Torture, were arrested on the steps of the Capitol after unfurling three banners that said “Broken Promises.  Broken Laws.  Broken Lives.”

Witness Against Torture is an organization who opposes torture and is calling for the U.S. facility in Guantanamo to be closed.  Members have been fasting since January 11th and planned on concluding their fast tomorrow to coincide with the one year anniversary of President Obama signing an Executive Order to close Guantanamo.  According to one of the organizers, Matthew Daloisio, the group held today’s action in anticipation that the Obama administration would not “close Guantanamo within it’s self-proclaimed one-year timeline.”

About 75 people processed from the White House to the Department of Justice to the Supreme Court to the Capitol in orange jumpsuits, said Daloisio.  Those people unfurled the three banners on the steps and were warned by the Capitol police to leave the area.  The 30 who did not leave the area were arrested peacefully. 

Simultaneously, a group of about 6 to 8 people gathered in the Rotunda and kneeled quietly in the center.  Daloisio said the point was to call attention to the story of three men whose deaths were ruled a suicide at Gitmo in 2006.  An article published in Harper’s Magazine earlier this month calls into question whether the men committed suicide or were murdered.  (Article can be found here: http://harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006368)  Those members of the organization were also peacefully arrested. 

Matthew Daloisio’s cell: 201-264-4424
Website for Witness Against Torture: www.witnesstorture.org
AP Article on the harper’s piece: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_guantanamo_suicides

Speaker Pelosi pledged to go forward with health care reform, but her newser this morning suggested that there was not a clear plan on how to do this.  She was fittingly interrupted by the tolling of a clock in the room, making it audibly clear that she was short on time when it came to health care.   Even if she kept repeating that they are not in a rush. 

The Speaker almost completely ruled out the idea of the House passing the Senate-version of the health care bill. “I don’t see the votes for it at this time.”

The press tried to get as much clarification as possible. “Unease would be a gentle word” to describe the attitudes of the speakers colleagues about multiple previsions of the Senate bill. “There are certain things that members just can not support.  For example the Nebraska piece of it.”  She also pointed out that there’s “always been unrest in our caucus about the excise tax on so-called ‘Cadillac benefits,’ just to name a few.”

“So in it’s present form without any change I don’t think it’s possible to pass the Senate bill in the House,” continued Pelosi.

However the Speaker was adamant that “We have to get a bill passed.  That’s a predicate that we all subscribe too.”  Passing the Senate bill and fixing it later presents fundamental problems for some of the democratic caucus members.  She related this to the Massachusetts special election by saying that some of the “concerns that were expressed in Mass, were about some of the provisions of the Senate bill.”

The Speaker seemed to put the idea of “just taking pieces of the bill” and figuring out how to pass those on the table.

There was an effort to move the conversation to the President’s agenda of job growth.  “The jobs issue has permeated everything, major initiative that we have.  Of course our last action here in the house was to pass a jobs bill before we had adjourned…It’s always been about jobs and deficit reduction.”  She continued that they may not have been clear enough about the connection between the creation of jobs and deficit reduction. 

While she said that they are not in a rush, the State of the Union looms large. 
“we’ll take the time it needs to consider the option again

When asked about her reaction to Sen-Elect Brown winning in Massachusetts she said, “The idea that at any given time the Senate would have 60 votes is not what we would call the most iron clad assumption… We always prepared for what if they don’t.”  She continued, “We’ve always though what if?… We were not without our preparation.” 

That may have been a hint at using reconciliation to pass some type of health care measure, but she wasn’t clear what the path was.  

The glamorous gate crashers, Michaele and Tareq Salahi, flashbulbed their way in front of the House Committee on Homeland Security.  They were subpoenaed to answer questions about attending the November 24^th White House State Dinner. 

The Salahi’s released a statement before the hearing, making it clear that they were going to “respectfully invoke” their right to remain silent and “decline to answer any questions surrounding the circumstances around the events of November 24, 2009.”  

At the beginning of the hearing, Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-MS) asked whether the Salahi’s attended the state dinner as part of a reality television stunt.  Mr. Salahi responded that he was under a “non-disclosure agreement” and that he could not discuss the agreement.  When Thompson pressed him on this, Mr. Salahi invoked his Fifth Amendment right.

Members of the committee took turns asking questions that got no answers, demanding that the White House present Desireé Rogers for questioning about changes in White House security practices and admonishing the Salahi’s for their behavior. 

The Salahi’s took turns saying, “On the advice of counsel I respectfully assert my right to remain silent and decline to answer your question.”

Rep. Laura Richardson was able to get an answer out of Mrs. Salahi when she asked if the Salahi’s would come back and testify once the criminal process was evaluated. Mrs. Salahi responded, “Yes.”

Rep. Peter King (R-CA) was particularly incensed saying that something went wrong and it originated at the White House.  So long as Desireé Rogers doesn’t appear, King continued, we are not going to find out what happened. 

After the hearing, the Salahi’s lawyer Stephen Best made a statement clarifying that the Salahi’s are innocent and have committed no criminal act. 

While I did not ask Mrs. Salahi where she got her fabulous white sweater wrap from, we’re pretty sure she would’ve asserted her fifth amendment right had we had the opportunity.