CIA (Letter) Admits That Info About Torture Briefings For Dems May Not Be Accurate

[kpete]

Source: The Plum Line

The Plum LineGreg Sargent's blog
CIA Admits That Info About Torture Briefings For Dems May Not Be Accurate

As I noted below, newly released documents appear to show that according to the CIA, officials briefed Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats back in 2002 about the use of torture techniques on terror suspects.

But a letter that accompanied these documents, written by the head of the CIA, appears to clearly concede that the information in the docs about who was briefed and when may not be accurate or reliable.

Republicans are pointing to the documents — which were produced by the CIA and the Director of National Intelligence, and sent to select members of Congress — to charge that Pelosi and other Dems have been lying about what they knew about waterboarding and when.

But the docs were accompanied by a letter from CIA chief Leon Panetta that appears to suggest the CIA can’t promise that the info is right. The letter was sent along with the documents to GOP Rep Pete Hoekstra, a leading critic of Dems on torture, and Dem Rep Silvestre Reyes, the chairman of the intelligence committee.

I’ve obtained the letter, and a PDF is right here.



Read more: http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/cia-admits-that-info-about-torture-briefings-for-dems-may-not-be-accurate/

[Supersedeas]

1. first Agent Kirakou and his 35 seconds of truth and now this -- what next, bad WMD Intell?

[JDPriestly]

2. Read the footnotes, the fine print, and you learn that the headlines are bunk.

The Democrats were "briefed" for the record, but the substance of their briefings is whatever somebody wants it to have been since there really aren't any reliable records. That's what court reporters are for. And any Democrat, any member of Congress, who attends a CIA briefing should insist on the presence of a court reporter in the future.

Let this be a lesson.

[Vickers]

6. Exactly. Here is what I posted in another thread about this re: MFRs

"Basically it is your 'recollection' of an event.

It doesn't have to be written on the day something happened, there is no review process, it does not have to be up-channeled or sent out for distribution or even annotated anywhere else except the MFR form itself.

There wasn't even a standard format for an MFR; you just typed it up and put it in your PERSONAL files.

Many times it was typed up the very day that someone or something (GAO? FOIA? IG inspection? Congressional inquiry? Your commander is pissed off?) triggered an investigation. Imagine that!

It was used to bolster your version of events if the shit hit the fan. For the most part, they are the least reliable form of written information to be found in the government, akin to eyewitness testimony while not under oath *cough* bush-cheney *cough-cough*.

IOW, pure bullshit."

Anyone basing headlines on an MFR is a fool.

[LiberalFighter]

18. Would court reporters even be allowed in those briefings?

[leveymg]

52. I read this note from Panetta differently: It says, Congress should investigate its own

And, I totally agree on that. It would be a start.

As for the Bush-Cheney cabal who actually ordered and carried out torture, Mr. Holder when are you going to convene a Grand Jury?

[annabanana]

3. This NEEDS to get onto the Greatest page... the "other" view

is getting plenty MSM love..

k&r

[Soylent Brice]

4. 5th REC, off to the greatest!

[myrna minx]

5. K&R! n/t

[robinlynne]

7. When you get kpete and babylonsister writing about the same thing you know it is

NEWS!

[kpete]

10. shout out to

babylonsister & robinlynne

peace sisters, kp

[underpants]

8. I know "MFRs" doesn't stand for mother#*$ers.... but it should

[Ozymanithrax]

9. Investigate.

If any Democrats or Republicans knew about war crimes and did not act to stop them as requried by law, prosecute them.

We are either a nation of laws or political animals that will justify anything our side does. We can not be both.

[No Elephants]

53. How about if they were on notice that an investigation was in order, but did not investigate?

Because I think that applies to all of Congress, except maybe those who are out of it entirely.

[louis-t]

11. I see, so I say I saw bush and Cheney double-team a sheep

on the WH lawn but my recollection might be wrong.:eyes:

[yellowcanine]

14. Uh, thanks for that totally repulsive mind picture. I will never look at a sheep again without it.

[louis-t]

33. Yer welcome.

[BobTheSubgenius]

37. I know, with little surprise....

...that the 'mind picture' didn't change your image of Bush and Cheney. :D

At least, that's how I read it. Without a covering letter from Leon Panetta, it's hard to tell.

[emulatorloo]

12. Kick. Unsure of why so many are willing to completely trust the Cheney Sleeper Cells at the CIA eom

[yellowcanine]

13. The torture apologists will not allow this to interfere with their "everyone agreed to it" meme.

[EFerrari]

19. What we will find is that everyone was briefed. What may be

at issue is how thorough those briefings were and how many there were. But the intelligence committee leaders, the House and Senate leaders and one other committee that I can't remember, they always are briefed on intelligence matters.

And every time we go through this flap -- with the wiretapping, with Abu Ghraib -- as if having these 8 people from each party briefed is some kind of revelation.

[Supersedeas]

30. Mika and Joe Skankburg have nothing more than this to offer

[ooglymoogly]

15. Propaganda in its most devious form....I spit on this downright

Machiavellian crap from our uber alles "intelligence" propagandists. "Cant verify veracity"???? "make of it what you will"???

Hey pssssst did you know, most members of the C eye Aay are zombie's, whose sole propose is to rob us for everything we have got and eat our brains. Make of it what you will.

[florida08]

16. this smells

all the way to Cheney. Best recollection my aunt fanny. Plumline also states: (Thanks for posting btw)

The CIA, in the documents that have now come to light, says she(Pelosi) was given “a description” of the enhanced interrogation techniques “that had been employed” on Zubayda. The documents don’t say whether that included waterboarding.

So either one of these things is true:

1) The CIA told Pelosi about the waterboarding of Zubayda. But the agency didn’t specify it in the newly-released docs describing the briefing, even though they’d waterboarded him over 80 times during the previous month, something that surely would have stood out to those recollecting what was said. And the agency didn’t specify the description of such extensive waterboarding, despite specifying the use of waterboarding in descriptions of the briefings elsewhere in the documents.

2) The CIA didn’t tell Pelosi about the use of waterboarding, or didn’t convey the scope of it, and hence didn’t include it in their description of the briefing.

Which seems more likely?

K&R..It was the CIA that destroyed interrogation tapes..not Pelosi

[LaPera]

17. Fucking Bush's CIA now backing off with lack of proof - Bush & the republicans were never going to

share really sensitive, criminal information with Pelosi and the Democrats ever....The republicans ruled everything then, they thought it was going to last forever.

The republicans are so fucking partisan and have such disdain for the democrats, the people and our government...they were not going to play fair or by the law, the republicans felt they were way above all that, untouchable and they certainly were NOT going to tell the Dems all their secrets about prisoner abuse & torture or about anything else...

Get real, we are talking about slimy fucking republicans in power here!!

[Old and In the Way]

45. Absolutely correct.

The CIA, the Republicans, and the Bush administration have lots of reasons to circle the wagons and cover each other's backside.

[flyarm]

20. Thank you KPETE..this is much more accurate!!! eom

[QUALAR]

21. Pelosi Smear

The leaked document critical of Democrats had a Niger letterhead and yellowcake stains all over it. Cheney left a mole or was it a rat behind.

[elleng]

22. NICE!

We can make the M FRs available!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Patsy Stone]

23. We don't know if it's right, but the moles got it out there for a few news cycles

so our work here is done.

Bastids.

[DerekJ]

24. "Unreliable"- > Translated -> Somebody lied and we caught him.

[harun]

25. That would be my translation as well.

[The Magistrate]

26. This Should, Ma'am, Prompt Dozens Of Retractions And Apologies Here, But It will Not

Many of the attacks on Speaker Pelosi and other leading Democrats here have nothing whatever to do with facts and actions, they are simply expressions of a pre-disposition to attack Democrats in leadership roles.

[Piewhacket]

27. Did I mention...

The "release" by the CIA disclosing briefings of congress/Pelosi
on torture is hilariously stupid, except as a political smear.

For even if it were entirely true, which is obviously suspect,
briefing congress is NOT a defense to war crimes. Pelosi had
no authority to authorize anything, nor genuine power to stop it.

Not merely that, but while I can think of legal theories for holding
the executive, up to the President, and including the justice
department lawyers, up to Gonzales, for war crimes, I know of no law which,
based on such briefings alone, would subject Pelosi or congressional
leaders to criminal prosecution. A lot more would be needed.

Yet maybe there is more, and this is just the warning shot.
So it could be a transparent political blackmail attempt using probable lies and
slanderous innuendo. It could be a real blackmail threat, with more threatened
to come. A four letter filthy word thus comes to mind: ROVE
That prick sacrifices even his own for the slightest advantage. Ruthless.
I'm astonished that no one has yet arrested that scum with unreasonable force.

The push back should shove it right back up their noses
with some PROSECUTIONS!!!!

[No Elephants]

54. Congress does have authority and responsiblity. One is to disclose. Another is to take action,

up to and including impeachment.

They sure knew enough to know that an investigation was warranted.

They did nothing that they unquestionably had the power to do.

Parisanship should not trump everything.

[Piewhacket]

55. Hard to see how to do that stuff without getting arrested..

for disclosing classified information. I'll bet the Bush justice
department would have been delighted to arrest the speaker
and her staff, ya figure?

Pelosi had no executive authority to stop anything, even assuming she knew,
which I doubt.

Besides, What's the point of an investigation if you DO KNOW what
is going on because you were fully briefed (which I also doubt
happened, btw) but can't tell anyone without getting arrested.

What's the point of investigation if you DON'T KNOW what's really,
going on and can't prove what you suspect because no one can testify.

What's the point of impeachment if you can't disclose the basis of the
offense because it is classified, and you must still try it in the senate,
but there aren't even close to 50 votes there and you can't present any
evidence anyway.

So in the end, aren't you basically blaming the wrong people for torturing
prisoners? The legislature cannot be said to have authorized torture. Show me
a law they passed saying torture was ok. There isn't one.

Now, I'm not soft on people who should have spoken up, but the people
getting intelligence briefings must be excused from divulging classified
information. Besides, aren't Bush, Cheney, Gonzoles, and so on the people
who actually committed the war crimes? Shouldn't we be focusing on them,
instead of playing the right-wing game of blaming Dems to divert attention
from Repuke criminal culpability.

No, if there is a glaring WRONG now, it is failure of justice to investigate
and prosecute these crimes. Yell at OBAMA! Yell at HOLDER! Tell them you want
these crimes prosecuted! That's the best use of lung capacity at present.

[SlingBlade]

28. CIA Black Bag Job .....

I wonder if this was done by the same guy who did the Niger documents ?
This was a shot over the bow.

Congress needs to play hard ball with these motherfuckers ....NOW !

And that "Finally" makes 1000 :):kick:

[polmaven]

29. What does ACCURACY

have to do with anything? There is NO way we can allow inaccurate statements to stand in the way of a good rant!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

31. We'll see.

Or maybe we won't.

[florida08]

32. here we go

first question on the Cafferty file today is about do you believe Pelosi did know about the EIT's? Good job Dennis Blair.
Do you think they'll have Panetta's letter?..lol

[flyarm]

34. CIA Manipulating Briefing Process!![/

i have been posting this since early this morning..and will continue to post until enough people read it!

do read the comments at emptywheel as well..chock full of info!!!!!!!!!!!!


http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/08/breaking-news-cia-manipulating-briefing-process/#more-4088

Breaking News!! CIA Manipulating Briefing Process!!
By: emptywheel Friday May 8, 2009 6:49 am

No. Not really breaking. We knew that CIA was playing around with its obligation to inform the intelligence committees before it starts any big new projects--like opening torture factories around the world.


snip;

Second, look at when--according to the CIA's specific assertions--they first talked about waterboarding to members of Congress:

February 4, 2003: Pat Roberts and a Republican and a Democratic staffer (but not Jello Jay); according to the CIA there was no specific mention of waterboarding in the February 5, 2003 briefing for Porter Goss and Jane Harman

July 13, 2004: Porter Goss and Jane Harman

July 15, 2004: Pat Roberts and Jello Jay



snip;
Given the way the SSCI narrative focuses on the constitutional amendments named under CAT (the 5th, 8th, and 14th), I suspect CIA was informed in no uncertain terms they would have to account for these in the briefing. If they did not record the fact, it suggests they were trying to claim deniability for that key issue (though that is speculative on my part).

The CIA seems to have no memory of the details of the 2005 briefings (and, as WO has pointed out, seems to have been unsure who was HPSCI Chair and who was DCIA, since it claims that Porter Goss, then head of CIA, attended a March 8, 2004 hearing as HPSCI Chair). That's rather curious as Mary McCarthy has alleged that the CIA briefers in two hearings in 2005 lied to Congress. At least one of these briefings would have also featured the Senators asking why they fuck OLC ignored the 8th Amendment (and the CAT generally) in its December 2004 opinion. It includes briefings when Jello Jay was beginning to ask for more details on the torture program, to no avail. And, finally, it includes briefings when Congress should have been briefed about the destroyed torture tapes, but wasn't. All of that? The CIA seems to have little memory of it.

Then there's the slew of Republican-only briefings in 2005, just after the Senate approved the McCain Amendment limiting torture use. As I've explained the most suspicious of those is the briefing of the two pro-torture Republicans holding DOD's purse strings.

Until, finally, in 2006, it finally gets around to briefing the full intelligence committees but not yet the full Gang of Eight, leaving off the House leadership, including Nancy Pelosi. Anyone wonder why Jane Harman got her very own briefing on September 6, 2006, the day Bush finally came clean as a tortuer? I do.

In short, in spite of what Republicans tell you (and therefore ABC prints), this is actually an utter damning chronology of CIA contempt for their obligations to inform Congress (particularly Democrats in Congress).

[Seldona]

35. K&R

I would like to see what the 'Office of Special Operations' was putting out as 'intelligence' during the same period. More than the CIA was involved in vetting what information got put forward and what didn't.

Until we crack open the whole thing, we will catch but the barest glimpse of what these people truly did, and what Congress was told or not told.

I personally never believed, though it wasn't based on anything concrete, that Congress was never fully briefed on what was happening. It certainly fits in with the last administration's philosophy on executive power. Namely that if the President said so, it wasn't illegal.

[liberalla]

36. K&R

[suzanner]

38. I read it differently, i.e. Pelosi wasn't present for all or some..

of the briefing(s). You recall, the Repugs at that time left Dems out of the loop at every opportunity- even had 'secret' meetings where Dems were excluded.

[bemildred]

39. So the CIA might lie to, or mislead us?

Hmmmm ...

It does say "This letter presents the most thorough information we have on dates, locations, and names of all Members of Congress ..."

So I don't think it is suggesting that the information presented might be lies.

[flyarm]

43. THE CIA WON'T VOUCH FOR THESE DOCUMENTS..SEE HERE..WHY..

I POSTED THIS EARLY THIS AFTERNOON..


http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/... /

CIA Lying to ABC about Torture. Again. ABC Reporting It Uncritically. Again.
By: emptywheel Thursday May 7, 2009 8:21 pm

"Were to be employed." Even in an op-ed attacking Pelosi, Goss never makes the claim that Pelosi knew they had been employed.

OR THIS:

In other words, the CIA doesn't even have the attendee list correct. Jello Jay was not at the briefing that CIA lists him attending. No wonder CIA won't vouch for the accuracy of their document. Yet, even with that asterisk there, ABC assumes that means Jello Jay got briefed as well. (Incidentally, CIA also fails to mention that Jello Jay and/or Pat Roberts had to remind them, in 2004, about the Eighth Amendment.)

SNIP: OR THIS:

Let's see. Jello Jay doesn't agree with the document. Nancy Pelosi doesn't agree with it.

But you know who else disagrees with the document? Porter Goss. As I've pointed out, he seems to agree with Nancy Pelosi that when they were briefed about torture in 2002 (after Abu Zubaydah had already been waterboarded), they were talking about torture in the subjunctive mood, not in the past tense.


OR THIS:

So Nancy Pelosi, Jay Rockefeller, and Porter Goss have all already identified problems with a document that the CIA itself refuses to vouch for. And who does ABC believe?


OR THIS SNIP:

But for now, suffice it to say it's clearly full of easily discerned problems. Which might be why CIA won't vouch for it.

Nevertheless, ABC thinks it's as great as the story they got about Abu Zubaydah being waterboarded just once.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I ALSO POSTED THIS VERY EARLY TODAY...........

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/...

Breaking News!! CIA Manipulating Briefing Process!!
By: emptywheel Friday May 8, 2009 6:49 am

No. Not really breaking. We knew that CIA was playing around with its obligation to inform the intelligence committees before it starts any big new projects--like opening torture factories around the world.


snip;

Second, look at when--according to the CIA's specific assertions--they first talked about waterboarding to members of Congress:

February 4, 2003: Pat Roberts and a Republican and a Democratic staffer (but not Jello Jay); according to the CIA there was no specific mention of waterboarding in the February 5, 2003 briefing for Porter Goss and Jane Harman

July 13, 2004: Porter Goss and Jane Harman

July 15, 2004: Pat Roberts and Jello Jay



snip;
Given the way the SSCI narrative focuses on the constitutional amendments named under CAT (the 5th, 8th, and 14th), I suspect CIA was informed in no uncertain terms they would have to account for these in the briefing. If they did not record the fact, it suggests they were trying to claim deniability for that key issue (though that is speculative on my part).

The CIA seems to have no memory of the details of the 2005 briefings (and, as WO has pointed out, seems to have been unsure who was HPSCI Chair and who was DCIA, since it claims that Porter Goss, then head of CIA, attended a March 8, 2004 hearing as HPSCI Chair). That's rather curious as Mary McCarthy has alleged that the CIA briefers in two hearings in 2005 lied to Congress. At least one of these briefings would have also featured the Senators asking why they fuck OLC ignored the 8th Amendment (and the CAT generally) in its December 2004 opinion. It includes briefings when Jello Jay was beginning to ask for more details on the torture program, to no avail. And, finally, it includes briefings when Congress should have been briefed about the destroyed torture tapes, but wasn't. All of that? The CIA seems to have little memory of it.

Then there's the slew of Republican-only briefings in 2005, just after the Senate approved the McCain Amendment limiting torture use. As I've explained the most suspicious of those is the briefing of the two pro-torture Republicans holding DOD's purse strings.

Until, finally, in 2006, it finally gets around to briefing the full intelligence committees but not yet the full Gang of Eight, leaving off the House leadership, including Nancy Pelosi. Anyone wonder why Jane Harman got her very own briefing on September 6, 2006, the day Bush finally came clean as a tortuer? I do.

In short, in spite of what Republicans tell you (and therefore ABC prints), this is actually an utter damning chronology of CIA contempt for their obligations to inform Congress (particularly Democrats in Congress).

[bemildred]

47. Sort of reminds me of the "This sentence is false" paradox.

On the one hand, the fact that the CIA lies is obvious, that's one of their jobs, on the other hand, one cannot then rely on what the CIA says about much of anything, including the "letters" under discussion here.

[ProSense]

40. Time to focus on

prosecuting Bush war criminals

[ProSense]

41. Repig wants to investigate Congress, not Bush war criminals.

Hoekstra considers hearings on Pelosi, interrogations

By Mike Soraghan and Jeremy P. Jacobs

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is under renewed fire after the Obama administration released documents that critics say contradict her claim that she was never told that U.S. detainees were being waterboarded.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (Mich.), the top Republican on House Intelligence, in an interview Friday said the document proves that Pelosi knew waterboarding occurred but has denied is because of political pressure from the liberal base of her party.

<...>

He is also considering calling for congressional hearings on what members knew and when they knew it.

“I wouldn't have a problem with the intelligence committee or the Judiciary Committee having hearings on this,” he said. “If (House Judiciary Chairman) John Conyers (D-Mich.) wants to have hearings, they shouldn't call in the Department of Justice attorneys as their first witnesses. The first people that should be called in and held accountable ought to be Congress.”

more

(emphasis added)

[Stinger2]

42. Death squads, disappearances and torture

Death squads, disappearances and torture

Washington and knitted together by secret flights, concentration camps, and black-site detention centers. The CIA's deployment of Orwellian "Special Removal Units" to kidnap terror suspects in Europe, Canada, the Middle East and elsewhere and the whisking of these "ghost prisoners" off to Third World countries to be tortured goes, today, by the term "extraordinary rendition", a hauntingly apt phrase. "To render" means not just to hand over but to extract the essence of a thing, as well as to hand out a verdict and "give in return or retribution" - good descriptions of what happens during torture sessions.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IL13Ak03.html

When will it be your turn?

[ProSense]

44. What does that have to do with Hoekstra trying to divert focus from Bush officials? n/t

[madrchsod]

46. little pete put on his big boy pants and he now thinks he`s a man

...where was big boy pete while bush was babysitting the country?

go back to your room pete , the adults are in charge.

[glinda]

50. Oh P U. Gawd I hate the Republicans. I can't even listen to anything they say anymore.

[Wednesdays]

48. K&R

:kick:

[livefreest]

49. NOTHING said or reported by officials appointed by the Bush administration

should be taken as truth. The Bush administration had and still has cronies throughout many agencies. Any word of those people or any document by those people should be doubted until verified and re-verified

[DWinNJ]

51. I remember it well

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sISWPzEqHLQ