Time to focus on prosecuting Bush war criminals. (updated)

[ProSense]

Time to focus on the actual war criminals.

Seems the Repubs are desperately pushing the Dems are complicity argument based on CIA briefings of Congress. Well let's explore this.

Pelosi's briefing:



Pelosi's response to recent reports based on the above:

Meanwhile, questions arose about how much House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew about the techniques.

A report to congressional leaders from CIA Director Leon Panetta disclosed that Pelosi, then the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, was briefed about the use of interrogation techniques in 2002.

She has said she was never told about the use of waterboarding -- simulated drowning -- or other techniques, saying only that the Bush administration had told her about legal opinions justifying their use.

But the report said Pelosi was briefed on Sept. 4, 2002, about enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs) on terrorism suspect Abu Zubaydah "and a description of the particular EITs that had been employed."

Pelosi stuck to her argument that she had not been told waterboarding was used, said Brendan Daly, her spokesman.

"As this document shows, the Speaker was briefed only once, in September 2002. The briefers described these techniques, said they were legal, but said that waterboarding had not yet been used," Daly said.

link

Rockefeller's briefing:

And here's the description of another briefing given to Rockefeller and Roberts, in July 2004:

Briefed on interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, abdominal slap, and sleep deprivation. Also briefed on actionable intelligence derived from EITs.

It's not news that Rockefeller was briefed on some aspects of the torture program. Nor has Rockefeller done nothing about the issue.

And of course, as far as we can find, he hasn't denied that he was briefed on the fact that waterboarding was happening, as Pelosi essentially has. Indeed, the West Virginia senator, who this year moved over to chair the appropriations committee, has been relatively restrained in his comments about the torture debate.

Still, Rockefeller has, rightly, had harsh words for the Bushies who approved torture. CNN reported last month:

Sen. Jay Rockefeller said he agreed that CIA operatives shouldn't face prosecution, but is "not prepared to say the same for the senior Bush administration officials who authorized or directed these policies in the first place."

"The focus for right now should be on finding the facts," the West Virginia Democrat added.

But if nothing else, the documents -- which appear to show that Rockefeller had an early, detailed, look at what was being done -- suggest that the senator, like many of his colleagues, was hardly a profile in courage on the issue.

Sen. Rockefeller's office did not immediately offer a comment. We'll update if and when they do.

Late Update: We should have noted that there's an asterisk next to Rockefeller's name in the document for the February 2003 briefing, under which it says: "Later individual briefing for Rockefeller." The exact date isn't specified. But the clear meaning is that the same topics were discussed at the individual briefing as at the Roberts briefing, since the description of what was talked about applies to both briefings. So if the document is accurate -- something, we should note, that has been questioned -- Rockefeller did hear in detail about water boarding, though the exact date remains up in the air.

Late Late Update: Sen. Rockefeller's office emails the following statement:

Senator Rockefeller was briefed but was not presented with the full picture nor was he told critical information that would have cast significant doubt on the program's legality and effectiveness. Senator Rockefeller became increasingly concerned about the program, and in early 2005 he launched a full-scale effort to investigate. The Senate Intelligence Committee's review is ongoing and he believes it is critically important that there be a full accounting of the Bush Administration's interrogation policies.

(emphasis added)

The complicity argument is stale. The focus on what Pelosi or any other Dem was briefed on is bizarre.

Anyone who wants to launch a thorough investigation into Bush's torture policy based on Pelosi's denial instead of Cheney's admission needs to get on with it.

Anyone found complicit will have to suffer the consequences, but the architects and those who approved it need to be prosecuted for war crimes.


Updated to add this from the NYT:

On Friday, the speaker issued a statement challenging the possible discrepancy. “Of the 40 C.I.A. briefings to Congress reported recently in the press, I was only briefed once, on September 4, 2002, as I have previously stated.” She said she was ‘briefed on interrogation techniques the administration was considering using in the future” and that the techniques were determined to be legal.

She also noted that Leon Panetta, the director of the C.I.A., had warned lawmakers that the descriptions of briefings provided in the new report “may not be accurate.”

The report is based on information documented during the Bush administration, and if Porter Goss' recent comments are any indication, there are several discrepancies.


Edited to fix link.

[Catch22Dem]

1. I'm focused on keeping my job

And feeding my family. Everything else, and I mean everything, is secondary.

[ProSense]

2. Thanks for sharing. n/t

[ProSense]

3. Ah, those crazy Repigs: Hoekstra wants to investigate Pelosi, not Bush officials

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)

[ProSense]

4. No comments? n/t