Democrats were routinely briefed on Bush torture techniques, document shows

[kpete]

Source: Raw Story

Democrats were routinely briefed on Bush torture techniques, document shows

By John Byrne

Published: May 8, 2009
Updated 2 hours ago

The CIA has leaked a devastating document detailing the dates and explicit details of secret Congressional briefings in which members of Congress were told of the Bush administration’s torture techniques and when they had been used.

The document is explicit (PDF here PDF:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124174688873899443.html). Most damningly, perhaps, is its description of a meeting held between CIA staff and then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Porter Goss and now-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, which shows that Pelosi was briefed on the Bush Administration’s torture techniques in 2002 — even though she’s publicly said she was never told about the use of waterboarding.

Equally striking, however, is the volume of the briefings that have been conducted on the CIA’s interrogation practices since 2002. The document runs ten pages, with up to four briefings a page.

Briefings given to Democrats are of particular significance because the party has been the most vocal about the Bush Administration’s torture practices. Apparently, however, they had known about the practices for years. At least 19 Democrats were briefed about the techniques in detail by end of 2006.




Read more: http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/08/democrats-were-routinely-briefed-on-bush-torture-techniques-document-shows/

[BlooInBloo]

1. (shrug) That's nice. Investigate them all.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

13. BUSH AND REPUB STRATEGY;;; MAKE EVERYONE DIRTY

[flyarm]

17. with a little help from ABC ..see my posts #3&10!!! EMPTYWHEEL

DON'T GET ME WRONG..I WANT EVERYONE INVOLVED IN BREAKING OUR LAWS PROSECUTED.. but we need an Independent Special Prosecutor..not spin and not cover up by any side here..we need the people's side represented ..by an Independent Special Prosecutor..so we can know the truth , the whole truth and nothing but the truth,..we deserve no less!! Nor do those that were tortured deserve less..our nations democratic values deserve nothing less..without a Independent Special Prosecutor we are left with spin doctors all trying to protect their own asses..by passing the blame and muddying the waters of truth.

There is one major CYA going on here...and we need to get to the bottom of it, for once and for all!!

[No Elephants]

113. ACLU has an online petition for appointment of a Special Pros. If you want an SP, sign it and

support ACLU.

[madmusic]

119. See this. Is it knowledge?

The Post suggests there has been a sweeping change in US policy on torture since September 11, despite public pronouncements against its use. It quotes Cofer Black, the former director of the CIA's counter-terrorist branch, as telling a congressional intelligence committee: "All you need to know: there was a before 9/11, and there was an after 9/11... After 9/11 the gloves come off."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/dec/27/usa.afghanistan

[JDPriestly]

170. And some of us have been screaming about this for a long time.

Actually, I only read the article from the Guardian that are posted here on DU or on a coupld of other websites I visit, and I don't read all the articles on the websites.

I did not see anything in the Los Angeles Times about this. Therefore this was not general knowledge even among the fairly well informed portion of the public.

[Hissyspit]

128. CIA (Letter) ADMITS THAT INFO ABOUT TORTURE BRIEFINGS FOR DEMS MAY NOT BE ACCURATE

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3868046&mesg_id=3868046

[polmaven]

144. But why should we

let a little thing like that get in the way of a good Democrat Bashing???? :shrug:

[flyarm]

164. Thank You Hissypit I have been posting that non stop, people just don't read!!

see my post #3 and 10 on this board and all my other posts showing that since early today!!

Of Course my #3 post has been moved quite a way down this board.

fly

[Piewhacket]

174. (thanks flyarm)

why some people get credit, while some just don't is a mystery of
the human condition. all we know is its doesn't seem to have anything
to do with 'deserve'. (thankfully for most of us)

did you ever consider though, that maybe your name is just
not as cool as Hissyspit's?
food, thought, just sayin. peace.

[Piewhacket]

168. Nice catch Hissyspit. it was obvious, but nice 'smoking gun'...

First, I'd just like to mention that Porter Goss is a POS
and I would not rely on anything he said unless it was his
confession to being a POS who masterminded a gang of criminal
thugs and rethugs.

Secondly, this "release" is hilariously stupid, except for
political smear purposes. For even if it were entirely true, which
we have some very serious reasons to doubt, briefing congress is NOT
a defense to war crimes committed by the executive. 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, up to Gonzoles, for war crimes. Porter Goss would
especially be on my short list, I think that MF was up to his bloody
elbows in war crimes. BUT I CANNOT IMAGINE any sensible legal theory,
based on this "release", which would subject Pelosi to prosecution
as a war criminal. She would have had to have been actively advocating
torture, promoting, cajolling, calling people... say, now that I think of it,
I wonder what Lindsey Graham was up to at the time?

Nice catch, Hissyspit. (I regularly enjoy your posts, btw, carry on!.)

[ControlledDemolition]

233. ... plausible denial... cut outs... MKULTRA... Operation Phoenix... n/t

[TankLV]

76. bush* & Cheney CREATE, AUTHORIZE & PUSH FOR TORTURE

and TELL/INFORM others OF WHAT THEY ARE DOING OR INTEND TO DO, and these same persons CANNOT TELL ANYONE UNDER PENALY OF LAW, and somehow THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE EQUIVALENT?!!!!

BULLSHIT!

THE FACT REMAINS, BUSH* & CHENEY WERE THE ONES DOING AND PUSHING THIS WAR CRIME!!!

And from all the reports, the DEMOCRATS were STRONGLY PROTESTING and DISAGREEING with what they WERE BEING TOLD!!!

The REPUKES can GO POUND SAND in PRISON...!!!

First: We DIDN'T/DON'T use "torture"
THEN: If we DID - it was "enhanced ..." not "torture!
THEN: WE GOT IMPORTANT INFORMATION from our "NOT TORTURE" and "saved lives", prevented ( ).
NOW: We TOLD others about it, so YOU'RE JUST AS GUILTY!
LAST GASP: Clinton did it TOO!!!

Just like their LIES for their EXCUSES of WAGING and ILLEGAL WAR OF CHOICE BASED ON LIES!

fucking unbelievable...

[Truth2Tell]

177. CANNOT TELL ANYONE UNDER PENALY OF LAW

No. Wrong. Penalties of laws like the State Secrets Act may not legally be applied in order to cover up lawbreaking by officials. Pelosi was actually free under the law to expose these acts and to publicly oppose them. She and the other Dems briefed simply lacked the political and moral courage to do so. It's a simple case of pathetic sniveling cowardice.

[Zodiak]

251. Unfortunately that is how I see it, as well.

Political cowardice is a rampant disease on our side of the aisle.

[No Elephants]

112. No one can make anyone else dirty. Those who are dirty got themselves that way.

[backscatter712]

162. Yep.

This little leak is the latest horse's head in the bed for those who would investigate torture...

[DeepBlueC]

246. nice metaphor

I can easily imagine that if these people who were constrained BY LAW from revealing classified briefings had done so, claiming that these things were against the law, why then the Justice Department would wave these legal opinions all over the courtroom where Democrats were being prosecuted for TREASON!!! These folks need to wake up.

No matter what the Democrats knew, what were they supposed to do about it? Bush/Cheney were not asking for their opinion...they did not give a shit. Perhaps they should have gone to the media? Have we all forgot that were are talking about the folks, and not just Faux, who were played like a violin by that Evil Empire? You know that it would have been the Democrats who caught the opprobrium, for aiding the enemy by breaching our secrets etc etc. I can tell you if it had gone down in he way that the most righteous would have it we would have no Democratic president right now to clean this up. And before that no Democratic Congressional gains. And it won't help to start jailing soldiers and CIA ops who were following the law as our Justice Department presented it. The highest up ought to pay the price but I don't see it as useful for us to commit hara kiri on a grand scale over this.

[JDPriestly]

167. The good news: If both parties are dirty, then appointing a special

prosecutor cannot be partisan politics. So, get to it. There is enough dirt on both sides of the aisle. Let's clean the whole house. I think this argument is going to backfire since we all know who was in the driver's seat on torture.

[Grinchie]

239. If I can't have it, Nobody will!

Burn it all down and leave nothing behind.

It's called scorched earth, and the Republicans have played it for the last 10 years.

[Bandit]

244. Republicans don't "make" them dirty, they just want people to know they are dirty.

If you were around DU during those days you would know that this is all old news. We knew way back then and discussed it often. Peloisi, Reid, Rockefeller, and many others were criticised heavily way back then..Everyone here knew that was why Impeachment was "Off the Table"..It is all old news but still important news and any involved should go to hell.

[Ozymanithrax]

43. If Democrats were told torture was being used.

And did not move to stop it. They share in the crime.

This idea works across or legal system. If you are told that a bank is being robbed, you share in the crime if you tell no one. If you learn murder will take place, you are legally obligated to speak up or become a member of a conspiracy.

If Democrats knew then they should be tried, prosecuted, convicted, and punished to the maximu extent of the law.

They were only dirty if they shared in a conspiracy to remain silent.

And if Obama an his administration do not investigatge, prosecute, and bring these people to justice, they are war criminals equal to Bush and Cheney.

[madmusic]

109. Can you cite a conviction upheld where a non-participant was guilty?

I know of no case where someone not involved at all was found guilty of the crime simply for not reporting it. There may be one, but cite it.

The crime here, if they knew, was saying they didn't know when they did. That's political, not criminal.

[No Elephants]

115. They probably have immunity, but a conviction is not the point. The point is they are WRONG,.

[madmusic]

121. A CIA fed news report accuses them of being wrong.

See my post 119. Hell, I'll repeat it.

The Post suggests there has been a sweeping change in US policy on torture since September 11, despite public pronouncements against its use. It quotes Cofer Black, the former director of the CIA's counter-terrorist branch, as telling a congressional intelligence committee: "All you need to know: there was a before 9/11, and there was an after 9/11... After 9/11 the gloves come off."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/dec/27/usa.afghanistan

If that is all they needed to know, is that all they were told? We don't know yet.

EDIT to add, and I was responding to claims knowledge was criminal. It is not that I know of.

[Ozymanithrax]

133. Under the Geneva convention Obama and the Democrats are..

required to investigate and, if necessary, prosecute war crimes. Failure to investigate and, where necessary, prosecute is a violation of the Geneva Convention and a war crime. By doing so he enters a conspiracy to hide war crimes.

Obama has already stated that those who were following orders should not be prosecuted. That is a violation of case law going back to the Nuremberg Trials. Following orders is not a defense in US Law or under our treaty obligations.

[truedelphi]

185. Obama's insistence that no one look "back"

Is bad policy and it will end up really taking a chunk out of his backside.

How can you not prosecute those who have committed serious crimes?

And in the case of the economic crimes committed by those who Obama then put in charge of the BailOut and our Economy, he is setting us up for another fall. If you don't investigate where a system failed, how do you know how to set that system up for its recovery?

Besides all that, the policy of not looking back is in these cases immoral (Not that morality ever counted for anything with politicians.)

[Grinchie]

240. The Only Chunk it will take from Obama is the trust of his electorate

It will most likely win him huge mounds of Political bootlicking from the rats in the Government.

[No Elephants]

210. I was on notice that there was way more than enough reason for someone to investigate. Weren't you?

Photos from Abu Ghraib. Did you believe Rummy when he said no one outside Iraq knew that was going on, and most of it came from England and her bf? I didn't. Did you see posts and articles about flights to places like Yemen so that detainees could be tortured there, by others, on behalf of the U.S. I did. And so on. Did you know that Kucinich and others had prepared Articles of Impeachment charging torture and war crimes, among other things? I did.

If you want to take the very least of this, everyone in cCongress had at least as much information as I did. I was on notice that there was AMPLE reason to investigate and perhaps impeach. How come Congress didn't do its duty?

Almost everyone in America, including the Southern Baptists, for pity sakes, now knows something was wrong. That means someone should investigate. And not anyone who was briefed. Why isn't Congress doing its duty about that, either?


Therefore, it doesn't matter one whit whether this CIA document is accurate or a steaming pile. Well before it appears, the ACLU and others have been petitioning for a special prosecutor. A special prosecutor or an independent counsel is in order, period.

[DeepBlueC]

247. what they don't have immunity from is treason

which is what they would have been charged with if they had breached national security to reveal our means and methods during a time of war, means and methods which had been ruled on by the Justice Department. And then there are the political costs which I can imagine Cheney would be only to happy to levy. The Congressional Democrats were in a no-win situation. Not only could they not discuss these matters with the public at large, but they could not even discuss them with EACH OTHER. No I am afraid the Dems were right snookered and all the blame for that goes right back to the original culprits. If it could have been done SUCCESSFULLY they would have done it but it COULD NOT and the costs would have been far too great. I don't know, do people here have the highest regard for suicidal virtue leading to the inevitable triumph of evil? It sure sounds like it.

[Ozymanithrax]

125. It is called conspiracy, and there are many.

If Obama and Democrats refuse to live up to their obligation under law to investigate and prosecute war crimes, they have committed a war crime.

[Truth2Tell]

181. Accessory after the fact. Or even direct accessory.

If your neighbor tells you that he just killed someone and buried their body in his back yard, and then tells you he plans to do the same thing again tomorrow, and you do nothing to alert the police, you will likely find yourself charged with a crime. Maybe not murder, but certainly a serious crime.

[pnwmom]

143. Not true. It would have been a crime to LEAK this information. It can't be

both a crime to LEAK it and a crime not to speak out about it.

[hootinholler]

148. It would have made for some interesting legal wrangling...

If a Senator spoke about it while they held the floor of the Senate or a Committee, then they cannot be prosecuted for anything they say. Reference Gravel and the Pentagon Papers.

-Hoot

[pnwmom]

151. Thanks, I'll look for that. n/t

[DeepBlueC]

248. thank you

people here don't seem to have thought this through as well as I am convinced the Congressional Democrats did.

[shadowknows69]

99. Hell, invesigate our side first

That way the RW whiners can't say shit when justice comes for them too

[DeepBlueC]

249. you forgot the sarcasm smiley

[lsewpershad]

136. That's right

NO ONE is above the law and until we start proving this, horrors like torture will continue.

[Christa]

2. Appoint a special prosecutor

and let the chips fall where they may.

[truebrit71]

4. Absolutely...time to clean the rats out...of BOTH parties...

...

[Christa]

6. Exactly

That's the change we voted for.

[bdamomma]

26. Congress really needs to be cleaned out.

[No Elephants]

122. More like emptied out. I'm for primarying every last one of them. Maybe not

Kucinich, Feingold or Kennedy. The rest need to be primaried. We need to start over. And outlaw lobbying while we are at it.

[robinlynne]

141. and Boxer.

[DeepBlueC]

250. you and Michelle Bachman

[NEOhiodemocrat]

118. That is so true

I don't care if they are Democrat's or Republicans, everyone who let torture go on should be exposed. Wrong is wrong for both sides of the aisle.

[No Elephants]

120. Sign the ACLU online petition for Holder to appoint a special pros. and support the ACLU.

[flyarm]

3. Special Prosecutor now!!!! This by Emptywheel is a bit different..

but no matter what we need a special prosecutor independent ..so we can all know the damn truth!!!!!!!No matter where it goes!! And hold all accountable that knew. But this way we are getting bits and pieces and spin baby spin.

Please go read this in it's entirety!!!!!!!

we are not getting the full story from ABC............

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/

snip:

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

As bmaz has reported, the CIA has sent a list of torture briefings to Crazy Pete Hoekstra on when and whom in Congress got briefed that the CIA was in the torture business. And ABC news, just off having to admit the CIA lied to them about torture in the past, has taken what the CIA gave them and treated it totally uncritically. Again.

Based on the list (which I've also obtained), they're out with a post claiming they've caught Pelosi in a contradiction.

The report, submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee and other Capitol Hill officials Wednesday, appears to contradict Pelosi’s statement last month that she was never told about the use of waterboarding or other special interrogation tactics.

Setting aside the fact that the list doesn't mention waterboarding specifically in its description of that briefing (it does in quite a few others), there are huge problems with using the list as a basis to claim anything.

First, there's this paragraph the CIA included in the letter they sent with the briefing list to Crazy Pete (which ABC didn't think important enough to include when they first posted this story):

snip;

CIA: "Here's a list, but we won't vouch for its accuracy."

ABC: "We've proven that Nancy was wrong!!"

ABC, after having been burned in the past, took documents that the CIA itself said might not be accurate, and treated them as accurate.

But it gets worse. ABC printed the following description, as if it were an accurate representation of the next set of torture briefings, which took place in February 2003.

[flyarm]

10. grain of salt needed! see emptywheel....

perhaps the best reporting being done on the torture info!!!

Pelosi’s Advisory On Abu Zubaydah And Torture

By: bmaz Thursday May 7, 2009 7:03 pm



As Marcy noted back on April 29th, the issue of Nancy Pelosi's briefing back in 2002 on the Bush/Cheney torture program, whether or not it was being applied to Abu Zubaydah and, if so, to what extent, has really turned into a he said-she said game. (See also here regarding the Porter Goss offensive against Pelosi and Harman).


http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/07/pelosis-advisory-on-abu-zubaydah-and-torture/#more-4084

snip;
Pelosi has already, of course, issued a denial through a spokesman. More he said-she said. Quite frankly, without more, today's play should be taken with a grain of salt. Multiple major news organizations have this hot off the press info right after Congress receives it and right wing hit rag Human Events (Jed Babbin) is pitching it as a slam on Pelosi. How very convenient. As further evidence of the need for grains of salt listen to Leon Panetta in his own cover letter transmitted with "the report":

“This letter presents the most thorough information we have on dates, locations, and names of all Members of Congress who were briefed by the CIA on enhanced interrogation techniques. This information, however, is drawn from the past files of the CIA and represents completed at the time and notes that summarized the best recollections of those individuals. In the end, you and the Committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened. We can make the MFRs available at CIA for staff review.” (Emphasis added)

As should be crystal clear by now, "those individuals" that worked on the "past files of the CIA" "at the time" were not necessarily the most even handed and/or disinterested arbiters of the truth. The CIA has a big bone in this fight, and it rests completely in implicating Pelosi, Harman and other members of Congress in their bad acts.


edit to add***ohhhhh and do read all the comments at Emptywheel..posters pick up many discrepencies in the CIA notes!

[glitch]

51. Thanks for positng. this. The mighty wurlitzer is gearing up.

I am glad they think they need to...

[No Elephants]

127. A Special Prosecutor can sort it all out.

[NewJeffCT]

58. Thanks - you might want to start a separate thread on this

As people are already damning the democrats here...

[flyarm]

88. seems no one here wants to read the full sotry..only what they want to believe..that is why we need

an Independent Special Prosecutor..so the Pete Hoekstra's and the team Cheney set up to defuse the info and the CIA which has much to lose and the complicit media who are the same fucking media that brought us the war based on nothing but bullshit and lies..can not muddy the truth...

but low be it for anyone here to read the full fucking story!! Seems only a few do!!


read more about this here..

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com /

snip:

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

As bmaz has reported, the CIA has sent a list of torture briefings to Crazy Pete Hoekstra on when and whom in Congress got briefed that the CIA was in the torture business. And ABC news, just off having to admit the CIA lied to them about torture in the past, has taken what the CIA gave them and treated it totally uncritically. Again.

Based on the list (which I've also obtained), they're out with a post claiming they've caught Pelosi in a contradiction.

The report, submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee and other Capitol Hill officials Wednesday, appears to contradict Pelosi’s statement last month that she was never told about the use of waterboarding or other special interrogation tactics.

Setting aside the fact that the list doesn't mention waterboarding specifically in its description of that briefing (it does in quite a few others), there are huge problems with using the list as a basis to claim anything.

First, there's this paragraph the CIA included in the letter they sent with the briefing list to Crazy Pete (which ABC didn't think important enough to include when they first posted this story):

snip;

CIA: "Here's a list, but we won't vouch for its accuracy."

ABC: "We've proven that Nancy was wrong!!"

ABC, after having been burned in the past, took documents that the CIA itself said might not be accurate, and treated them as accurate.

But it gets worse. ABC printed the following description, as if it were an accurate representation of the next set of torture briefings, which took place in February 2003.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

perhaps the best reporting being done on the torture info!!!

Pelosi’s Advisory On Abu Zubaydah And Torture

By: bmaz Thursday May 7, 2009 7:03 pm



As Marcy noted back on April 29th, the issue of Nancy Pelosi's briefing back in 2002 on the Bush/Cheney torture program, whether or not it was being applied to Abu Zubaydah and, if so, to what extent, has really turned into a he said-she said game. (See also here regarding the Porter Goss offensive against Pelosi and Harman).


http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/07/pelosis-ad...

snip;
Pelosi has already, of course, issued a denial through a spokesman. More he said-she said. Quite frankly, without more, today's play should be taken with a grain of salt. Multiple major news organizations have this hot off the press info right after Congress receives it and right wing hit rag Human Events (Jed Babbin) is pitching it as a slam on Pelosi. How very convenient. As further evidence of the need for grains of salt listen to Leon Panetta in his own cover letter transmitted with "the report":

“This letter presents the most thorough information we have on dates, locations, and names of all Members of Congress who were briefed by the CIA on enhanced interrogation techniques. This information, however, is drawn from the past files of the CIA and represents completed at the time and notes that summarized the best recollections of those individuals. In the end, you and the Committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened. We can make the MFRs available at CIA for staff review.” (Emphasis added)

As should be crystal clear by now, "those individuals" that worked on the "past files of the CIA" "at the time" were not necessarily the most even handed and/or disinterested arbiters of the truth. The CIA has a big bone in this fight, and it rests completely in implicating Pelosi, Harman and other members of Congress in their bad acts.


edit to add***ohhhhh and do read all the comments at Emptywheel..posters pick up many discrepencies in the CIA notes!

[pleah]

5. K&R

[KansDem]

7. So the question remains: "Why did they go along with it?"

I definitely believe a house (and senate) cleaning is in order...

[pokercat999]

20. Exactly time to remove them all by whatever means

NECESSARY! Investigate and prosecute everyone involved starting with Bush and ending with the enlisted personnel carrying out the orders including any Dems with knowledge/involvement. Minimum punishment removal from office and huge fines, maximum life in prison. If we release the "drug offenders" we will have plenty of prison space.

[flyarm]

90. go read this ..i want eveyrone involved prosecuted as well but i want it done independently with

a special prosecutor..not repugs or dems and not with the damn media that ha sbeen lying from the get go!


http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com /

snip:

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

As bmaz has reported, the CIA has sent a list of torture briefings to Crazy Pete Hoekstra on when and whom in Congress got briefed that the CIA was in the torture business. And ABC news, just off having to admit the CIA lied to them about torture in the past, has taken what the CIA gave them and treated it totally uncritically. Again.

Based on the list (which I've also obtained), they're out with a post claiming they've caught Pelosi in a contradiction.

The report, submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee and other Capitol Hill officials Wednesday, appears to contradict Pelosi’s statement last month that she was never told about the use of waterboarding or other special interrogation tactics.

Setting aside the fact that the list doesn't mention waterboarding specifically in its description of that briefing (it does in quite a few others), there are huge problems with using the list as a basis to claim anything.

First, there's this paragraph the CIA included in the letter they sent with the briefing list to Crazy Pete (which ABC didn't think important enough to include when they first posted this story):

snip;

CIA: "Here's a list, but we won't vouch for its accuracy."

ABC: "We've proven that Nancy was wrong!!"

ABC, after having been burned in the past, took documents that the CIA itself said might not be accurate, and treated them as accurate.

But it gets worse. ABC printed the following description, as if it were an accurate representation of the next set of torture briefings, which took place in February 2003.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

perhaps the best reporting being done on the torture info!!!

Pelosi’s Advisory On Abu Zubaydah And Torture

By: bmaz Thursday May 7, 2009 7:03 pm



As Marcy noted back on April 29th, the issue of Nancy Pelosi's briefing back in 2002 on the Bush/Cheney torture program, whether or not it was being applied to Abu Zubaydah and, if so, to what extent, has really turned into a he said-she said game. (See also here regarding the Porter Goss offensive against Pelosi and Harman).


http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/07/pelosis-ad...

snip;
Pelosi has already, of course, issued a denial through a spokesman. More he said-she said. Quite frankly, without more, today's play should be taken with a grain of salt. Multiple major news organizations have this hot off the press info right after Congress receives it and right wing hit rag Human Events (Jed Babbin) is pitching it as a slam on Pelosi. How very convenient. As further evidence of the need for grains of salt listen to Leon Panetta in his own cover letter transmitted with "the report":

“This letter presents the most thorough information we have on dates, locations, and names of all Members of Congress who were briefed by the CIA on enhanced interrogation techniques. This information, however, is drawn from the past files of the CIA and represents completed at the time and notes that summarized the best recollections of those individuals. In the end, you and the Committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened. We can make the MFRs available at CIA for staff review.” (Emphasis added)

As should be crystal clear by now, "those individuals" that worked on the "past files of the CIA" "at the time" were not necessarily the most even handed and/or disinterested arbiters of the truth. The CIA has a big bone in this fight, and it rests completely in implicating Pelosi, Harman and other members of Congress in their bad acts.


edit to add***ohhhhh and do read all the comments at Emptywheel..posters pick up many discrepencies in the CIA notes!

[flyarm]

33. How do you know they did and how do you know this isn't being spun to cya by the CIA?

go read emptywheel!!!!!!!!

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com /

snip:

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

As bmaz has reported, the CIA has sent a list of torture briefings to Crazy Pete Hoekstra on when and whom in Congress got briefed that the CIA was in the torture business. And ABC news, just off having to admit the CIA lied to them about torture in the past, has taken what the CIA gave them and treated it totally uncritically. Again.

Based on the list (which I've also obtained), they're out with a post claiming they've caught Pelosi in a contradiction.

The report, submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee and other Capitol Hill officials Wednesday, appears to contradict Pelosi’s statement last month that she was never told about the use of waterboarding or other special interrogation tactics.

Setting aside the fact that the list doesn't mention waterboarding specifically in its description of that briefing (it does in quite a few others), there are huge problems with using the list as a basis to claim anything.

First, there's this paragraph the CIA included in the letter they sent with the briefing list to Crazy Pete (which ABC didn't think important enough to include when they first posted this story):

snip;

CIA: "Here's a list, but we won't vouch for its accuracy."

ABC: "We've proven that Nancy was wrong!!"

ABC, after having been burned in the past, took documents that the CIA itself said might not be accurate, and treated them as accurate.

But it gets worse. ABC printed the following description, as if it were an accurate representation of the next set of torture briefings, which took place in February 2003.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

perhaps the best reporting being done on the torture info!!!

Pelosi’s Advisory On Abu Zubaydah And Torture

By: bmaz Thursday May 7, 2009 7:03 pm



As Marcy noted back on April 29th, the issue of Nancy Pelosi's briefing back in 2002 on the Bush/Cheney torture program, whether or not it was being applied to Abu Zubaydah and, if so, to what extent, has really turned into a he said-she said game. (See also here regarding the Porter Goss offensive against Pelosi and Harman).


http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/07/pelosis-ad...

snip;
Pelosi has already, of course, issued a denial through a spokesman. More he said-she said. Quite frankly, without more, today's play should be taken with a grain of salt. Multiple major news organizations have this hot off the press info right after Congress receives it and right wing hit rag Human Events (Jed Babbin) is pitching it as a slam on Pelosi. How very convenient. As further evidence of the need for grains of salt listen to Leon Panetta in his own cover letter transmitted with "the report":

“This letter presents the most thorough information we have on dates, locations, and names of all Members of Congress who were briefed by the CIA on enhanced interrogation techniques. This information, however, is drawn from the past files of the CIA and represents completed at the time and notes that summarized the best recollections of those individuals. In the end, you and the Committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened. We can make the MFRs available at CIA for staff review.” (Emphasis added)

As should be crystal clear by now, "those individuals" that worked on the "past files of the CIA" "at the time" were not necessarily the most even handed and/or disinterested arbiters of the truth. The CIA has a big bone in this fight, and it rests completely in implicating Pelosi, Harman and other members of Congress in their bad acts.


edit to add***ohhhhh and do read all the comments at Emptywheel..posters pick up many discrepencies in the CIA notes!

[Bette Noir]

37. Even if the briefings were made as described in this document,

the briefings were secret. Pelosi and the others could not have gone public without risking prison. Saints and agitators are willing to risk prison for their principles, but not elected officials. Only Republicans are allowed to leak state secrets with impunity.

[MadHound]

40. Hmm, let's see, go to prison or allow a war crime to happen

By allowing a war crime to happen, you should be going to prison.

[No Elephants]

129. She would not have risked prison. She has Congressional Immunity. They ALL do.

[Truth2Tell]

186. And if the secret information related to CRIMES,

like TORTURE, then their secret classification IS ITSELF ILLEGAL to begin with. And the release of the information IS NOT ILLEGAL. You cannot legally use the State Secrets Act to cover up crimes. This is explicitly stated in the language of the Act.

How many times does this need to be explained to people on DU?

All any Senator or Representative needed to have done was make a the rational self-evident determination that what they were being briefed about violated the law, which it clearly did on its face. At that point they were not only legally free, but morally OBLIGATED to expose the crimes.

It's certainly true that any Congressional whistle blower would have faced a fierce political and maybe legal backlash from the powerful criminals they would've been exposing. But that comes with the territory of Congressional oversight. Right? :shrug:

[No Elephants]

224. Great point, thanks. And, yes, it does come with the territory of Congressional oversight--and with

being a public servant, on the people's payroll.

[never cry wolf]

77. Being told a crime is being committed is not abetting it

The bush admin had them briefed on what the bush admin authorized and ordered. These briefings were top secret and the congresscritters were sworn to secrecy under penalty of a felony, they could not even tell other congresscritters who were not authorized to be in on the briefings. They did not ok it, they heard about it but had no power to do anything about it.

[No Elephants]

134. No power, my ass. No felony-- Congressional Immunity. If true, they lacked moral fiber, period

[woo me with science]

242. And why did they make it a partisan political issue?

Idiots.

[sellitman]

8. Jail ANYONE connected.

Bust them all to hell!

[grahamhgreen]

9. The CIA is admitting to WAR CRIMES. Those involved must go or our children will suffer.

But keep our eye on the prize - the CIA is admitting to a crime here, but they may be using Pelosi, et al, to draw heat away from their admission of guilt.

[xchrom]

11. recommend

[Cassandra]

12. Are we sure that the CIA didn't cook up this document...

just for the occasion? Maybe the Dems were told, maybe not. Do I want to put my faith in documents generated by the torturers?

[flyarm]

16. Go read Emptywheel on this..the most comprehensive reporting going on!! see #3&10

[NewJeffCT]

65. +1 - please start a separate thread with emptywheel's info

thanks

[rateyes]

67. I went to emptywheel and read what they had to say, and then went to the

documents themselves.

The document claims, on the first line, that Porter Goss and Nancy Pelosi were briefed on all the techniques that had already been used on Abu Zabaydah. If that is accurate, then the torture took place first, then Pelosi was told that the torture took place, and Nancy kept her mouth shut about it for 7 years.

She had to have known that, if they had already waterboarded, they would probably do more waterboarding. She kept her mouth shut for 7 years.

Again, if the document is true, then Nancy, IMO, is complicit. She, at least, deserves to have an fair investigation of her actions/inactions.

What did Congress know, and when did they know it?

[flyarm]

101. Opps did you read this??????

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

Breaking News!! CIA Manipulating Briefing Process!!
By: emptywheel Friday May 8, 2009 6:49 am 0


snip:

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.

But that's the real story of this briefing list--aside from what a bunch right wingers are claiming it says, the actual details of the briefing list notwithstanding. The real story is that the CIA was playing a bunch of games to be able to claim it had informed Congress, even while only informing some of Congress some things.

First, CIA has officially confirmed what I have been saying for weeks. The CIA first briefed Congress on torture on September 4, 2002, 35 days after CIA purportedly began waterboarding and much longer after we know CIA started torturing Abu Zubaydah. Moreover, we have on the record statements from Pelosi and Goss (and I've had even stronger assurances elsewhere) that CIA did not tell Congress they were already in the business of torture. Their discussions of torture were all prospective, and they may even have stated clearly that they had not used these techniques yet, which (if true) would be a clear and direct lie to Congress.

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

Now, it's possible that the people trying to smear Pelosi with this are correct and CIA mentioned waterboarding in September 2002. But that's not what the CIA says. Once you account for the fact that Jello Jay did not attend the February 4 briefing, the CIA says it first informed Democrats about waterboarding in July 2004, only after the CIA's own Inspector General had declared the program cruel and inhuman (and note, the Senate intelligence leaders, at least, got a copy of that document in June 2004, so the CIA couldn't very well pretend that they hadn't been waterboarding).


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

OR DID YOU READ THIS???????????????

THIS FROM AN OBSERVANT POSTER AT EMPTYWHEEL..( I WILL NOT POST THEIR NAME BUT I WILL POST THE LINK)

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/07/pelosis-advisory-on-abu-zubaydah-and-torture/

PLEASE DO READ ALL THE COMMENTS ON THIS THREAD AT EMPTYWHEEL!!!!!!!

...................

" but I’d like to point out one really weird detail. Take a look at the legislators listed for the 03/08/05:

Pat Roberts
Jay Rockefeller
Porter Goss
Jane Harman

Something seems a little wrong with that list…. What could it be? Let me think… Oh yeah, in 2005, Porter Goss wasn’t in Congress. Seems like he had some position in the administration. What was that? Oh, I remember he was the head of one of those three letter agencies… the CIA.

Wait a minute… you mean these guys couldn’t even remember what Porter Goss was actually doing in 2005 when he was their boss. That gives me a whole lot of confidence in them and this document. Not."

[rateyes]

108. Yes, I read all of it. That's why I said that IF the document

is ACCURATE, THEN Pelosi knew torture had already taken place. We need an investigation to find out what Pelosi, Porter, et al knew and when they knew it, and what they did about it.

[flyarm]

160. YOU COULDN'T HAVE READ IT ENTIRELY..BECAUSE YOU WOULD KNOW THIS..

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/07/cia-lying-to-abc-about-torture-again-abc-reporting-it-uncritically-again/

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.

[flyarm]

161. DID YOU REALLY? THEN YOU WOULD KNOW THIS RIGHT??

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/07/cia-lying-to-abc-about-torture-again-abc-reporting-it-uncritically-again/

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.

[unpossibles]

53. I agree - again, Pelosi pissed me off on a few things, and frankly anyone who IS found to have

Okayed this should be investigated equally, BUT with the Bush Administration's history of cooked intelligence and lying to the public and to Congress to get its policies passed (see: Iraq, Plame, etc.), then why would we believe this? This is why we need independent investigations.

[No Elephants]

139. Point is, we need a Special Prosecutor. I will suspend judgment if we get one. If

we just get DiFi's secret, year long investigation, They will NEVER get back anyone's trust.

Trying to prove guilt or innocence as to top secret stuff via the battle of the online blogs borders on the insane, IMO.

Consider signing ACLU's online petition to Holder for appointment of a Special Proseutor.

[gratuitous]

14. And how many were "briefed"

How many Democrats were briefed with all the details, and were free to talk about it? Or were they told that they couldn't discuss any of this, even with their own staffs? Remember Jay Rockefeller had to hand-write his concerns in a secret letter about what he'd been told or be subject to the worst the Bush administration could do to him under the USA PATRIOT Act?

This is blackmail, pure and simple, and a subversion of the Constitution, which every one involved has sworn to preserve, protect and defend. Let's get some investigations going, please?

[Captain Hilts]

70. Congressional leadership and Intel Cmte members cannot talk. nt

[No Elephants]

140. Sure they can. They have Congressional Immunity. They don't even need a pardon. Especially since

this info is already public.

[hootinholler]

145. Actually that's not completely true...

A senator cannot be prosecuted for anything he says on the Senate floor. I was on board until I found out about that tidbit.

-Hoot

[No Elephants]

171. Congressional Immunity is broader than that.

[hootinholler]

189. I'd love some light reading for the weekend on this subject.

All I'm aware of is the Gravel case in regard to the Pentagon Papers.

-Hoot

[No Elephants]

202. Google: Congressional Immunity Classified Information.

[Danchi]

15. Torture techniques

If this is legit than it sheds new light on why Nancy Pelosi continued to say impeachment was off the table when bush was in office and why she is not supportive of a full scale non-partisan investigation into the bush torture years. It seems she doesn't want anything to be traced back to her. She needs to come clean. The sooner the better.

[lazer47]

18. I think they all have a little S&M or B&D fetish,, they like to hear the stories

[Ian David]

19. I don't care WHAT party they belong to... if they were complicit, PUT THEM ON TRIAL! n/t

[Soylent Brice]

21. okay, let's just systematically dismantle a corrupted government then.

time to truly rebuild.

prosecute all involved.

funny thing, the only person left may be Kucinich.

[HereSince1628]

28. yes, this is the time to yank all the bad teeth. Take the country back from the CIA

It is now quite apparent how the Dems compromised themselves.

[bdamomma]

34. I don't think Dennis has any skeletons in his closet.

he could of been blackmailed too, during the time of when he wanted to investigate Cheney.

[No Elephants]

173. My money is on Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy, too.

[nc4bo]

22. Not sure why anybody would be surprised

many here on DU have been saying essentially the same thing and to be honest here, it provides a good explanation on why "impeachment is off the table".

Old saying: He that lieth down with Dogs, shall rise up with Fleas.

This story (and others like it) will definitely need to be watched carefully.

:popcorn:

[sammythecat]

87. Me either

Our Democratic "leadership" has failed miserably throughout the Bush years. I can think of two sets of reasons for their deplorable behavior. One, they're stupid beyond belief, gullible, and stunningly clueless. Two, they're cowardly self-serving whores willing to do ANYTHING not to jeopardize their political careers. Simple logic and common sense tells me it's the second.

I don't know enough to say which ones were complicit, but I strongly suspect Nancy Pelosi is one of them. I just don't believe her, and I was thrilled for her, and for us, in 2006. What a disappointment she's been. I don't think she, or any of the others who are complicit, instigated any of the wrongs done by Cheney/Bush, but their cowardice and self-serving compliance allowed everything.

I'm just as interested in them being held accountable for their inaction as I am for the instigators to be held accountable for their actions.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

23. Pelosi has been in Washington how many years?

She knows how it works. For her to frame this as I didn't know they were actually doing this is laughable and sad for our democracy.

She will end up caught up in a box she won't be able to squirm out of.

[flyarm]

24. Go read Emptywheel on this she has it all laid out clearly..see Posts #3&10!!!

[No Elephants]

175. Did YOU know Bushco was torturing, even though you were not briefed? Hell, Cheney

said on Fox and MTP that waterboarding was not torture in such a context that I would have bet my life they were torturing.. Did you really believe that moran England knew on her own that Muslims won't pray where dogs are--that no one outside Iraq knew about Abu Ghraib?

Congress--ALL of Congress--knew at least as much as you and I did. And you and I both knew that at least an investigation should commence, if not impeachment. Empty Table did not have at least enough info to know an investigation was in order?

Please.

[flyarm]

217. that is not the so called fact that was brought up in the op..this was..

"Democrats were routinely briefed on Bush torture techniques, document shows"

my question reamains ..What techniques were they briefed on?? and the CIA even admits that these documents they won't vouch for ..

Look I am the first on line wanting every single person responsible for torture held fully accountable to our law and international laws..i have been fighting for this for a very long time..but until and unless we have a full inquiry ..and Independent Special Prosecutor, i don't believe we will ever have the full truth..even if we have to bring in international prosecutors to help with a domestic investigation, i would go that far..I want the full truth..The truth and nothing but the truth..otherwise we are no better than a Banana republic..i believe 1000% in rule of law and no man or woman is above that or our laws and our constitution..

but we need the full truth..and i don't give a damn who it is , or any damn party , i want all responsible held accountable..and i can know some of the parts, but none of us knows all of the parts of this especailly when so much partisan shit is going down..we need an independent prosecutor to tell us what and if and who broke our laws..other wise it is like spitting in the wind.


read this and understand what it is really saying!


http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/07/cia-lying-to-abc-about-torture-again-abc-reporting-it-uncritically-again/

CIA Lying to ABC about Torture. Again. ABC Reporting It Uncritically. Again.
By: emptywheel Thursday May 7, 2009 8:21 pm 18


As bmaz has reported, the CIA has sent a list of torture briefings to Crazy Pete Hoekstra on when and whom in Congress got briefed that the CIA was in the torture business. And ABC news, just off having to admit the CIA lied to them about torture in the past, has taken what the CIA gave them and treated it totally uncritically. Again.

Based on the list (which I've also obtained), they're out with a post claiming they've caught Pelosi in a contradiction.

The report, submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee and other Capitol Hill officials Wednesday, appears to contradict Pelosi’s statement last month that she was never told about the use of waterboarding or other special interrogation tactics.

Setting aside the fact that the list doesn't mention waterboarding specifically in its description of that briefing (it does in quite a few others), there are huge problems with using the list as a basis to claim anything.

First, there's this paragraph the CIA included in the letter they sent with the briefing list to Crazy Pete (which ABC didn't think important enough to include when they first posted this story):

This letter presents the most thorough information we have on dates, locations, and names of all Members of Congress who were briefed by the CIA on enhanced interrogation techniques. This information, however, is drawn from the past files of the CIA and represents MFRs completed at the time and notes that summarized the best recollections of those individuals. In the end, you and the Committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened. We can make the MFRs available at CIA for staff review.

CIA: "Here's a list, but we won't vouch for its accuracy."

ABC: "We've proven that Nancy was wrong!!"

ABC, after having been burned in the past, took documents that the CIA itself said might not be accurate, and treated them as accurate.

But it gets worse. ABC printed the following description, as if it were an accurate representation of the next set of torture briefings, which took place in February 2003.

[bdamomma]

25. 19 democrats huh??? investigate them all both dems and repigs.

justice must be served.

[flyarm]

30. go read Emptywheel..you are not getting the full story with this report.

start here:

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com /

snip:

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

As bmaz has reported, the CIA has sent a list of torture briefings to Crazy Pete Hoekstra on when and whom in Congress got briefed that the CIA was in the torture business. And ABC news, just off having to admit the CIA lied to them about torture in the past, has taken what the CIA gave them and treated it totally uncritically. Again.

Based on the list (which I've also obtained), they're out with a post claiming they've caught Pelosi in a contradiction.

The report, submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee and other Capitol Hill officials Wednesday, appears to contradict Pelosi’s statement last month that she was never told about the use of waterboarding or other special interrogation tactics.

Setting aside the fact that the list doesn't mention waterboarding specifically in its description of that briefing (it does in quite a few others), there are huge problems with using the list as a basis to claim anything.

First, there's this paragraph the CIA included in the letter they sent with the briefing list to Crazy Pete (which ABC didn't think important enough to include when they first posted this story):

snip;

CIA: "Here's a list, but we won't vouch for its accuracy."

ABC: "We've proven that Nancy was wrong!!"

ABC, after having been burned in the past, took documents that the CIA itself said might not be accurate, and treated them as accurate.

But it gets worse. ABC printed the following description, as if it were an accurate representation of the next set of torture briefings, which took place in February 2003.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

perhaps the best reporting being done on the torture info!!!

Pelosi’s Advisory On Abu Zubaydah And Torture

By: bmaz Thursday May 7, 2009 7:03 pm



As Marcy noted back on April 29th, the issue of Nancy Pelosi's briefing back in 2002 on the Bush/Cheney torture program, whether or not it was being applied to Abu Zubaydah and, if so, to what extent, has really turned into a he said-she said game. (See also here regarding the Porter Goss offensive against Pelosi and Harman).


http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/07/pelosis-ad...

snip;
Pelosi has already, of course, issued a denial through a spokesman. More he said-she said. Quite frankly, without more, today's play should be taken with a grain of salt. Multiple major news organizations have this hot off the press info right after Congress receives it and right wing hit rag Human Events (Jed Babbin) is pitching it as a slam on Pelosi. How very convenient. As further evidence of the need for grains of salt listen to Leon Panetta in his own cover letter transmitted with "the report":

“This letter presents the most thorough information we have on dates, locations, and names of all Members of Congress who were briefed by the CIA on enhanced interrogation techniques. This information, however, is drawn from the past files of the CIA and represents completed at the time and notes that summarized the best recollections of those individuals. In the end, you and the Committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened. We can make the MFRs available at CIA for staff review.” (Emphasis added)

As should be crystal clear by now, "those individuals" that worked on the "past files of the CIA" "at the time" were not necessarily the most even handed and/or disinterested arbiters of the truth. The CIA has a big bone in this fight, and it rests completely in implicating Pelosi, Harman and other members of Congress in their bad acts.


edit to add***ohhhhh and do read all the comments at Emptywheel..posters pick up many discrepencies in the CIA notes!

[bdamomma]

39. the CIA I do not trust them at all, no matter what

some investigations are needed quickly.

[Supersedeas]

105. is there a list of the 19 names?

[Old Codger]

27. If true

Goes a long ways toward explaining why impeachment and any other inquiries were "off the table" with pelosi and reid ..CYA PYA

[Bread and Circus]

29. As long as rich people aren't suffering...it's A O K

/end sarcasm...

I'm not surprised. I'm pretty sure there's a lot more that were in on it in one way or another. Please, prosecute them all. It is more painfully clear why the Dems won't prosecute. They were complicit.

[formercia]

31. They co-opted the Dems.

This is how you keep people from jumping ship.

So, did any of these Dems file a letter of protest?

[grahamhgreen]

32. Pelosi DENIES this. I'm sure the CIA knows how to talk around these things in order to make it LOOK

like they briefed her when they did not.

That said, if she signed off on torture, she should fess up and step down.

[atreides1]

38. Politicians always deny things

Yes, while the CIA has certain abilities, I don't think they would create a document like this. There are going to be too many who will take this report apart to make sure that it's the real thing.

[aquart]

106. You don't think the CIA would....

Oh, you sweet child.

[jgraz]

163. I've seen her denials. She's obviously lying.

Watch her interview with Rachel Maddow. It's almost embarrassing how ineptly she lies when confronted this question. I expect better dissembling skills from my politicians.

[Dogmudgeon]

35. This is beginning to stink to high heaven

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/briefings.pdf">Click here for the document.

1) Pelosi's name appears at the very beginning of the document.

2) Most of the descriptions are brief and contain little detailed information -- but Pelosi's DOES contain detailed information. Nearly all detailed information is at the beginning of the document.

3) Most of the Democrats mentioned appear to be vulnerable and in closely-held states/districts. (Ideally, a full analysis should be done.)

4) Several Republicans are mentioned in the document, yet there has been no reportage on their complicity.

What the hell is going on here?

If the Republicans released this to get at Democrats, though, this will backfire. The need for an independent investigation has become overwhelming. It looks as though 10-20 Democrats may be complicit at most, but the Republican complicity goes right to the top. If the worst is proven, yes, "off with their heads". BUT ... is this turning into an internecine Democratic Party blooding?

Don't just question authority, question EVERYTHING.

--d!

[flyarm]

36. Please people go read Emptywheel on this! Here is links..the best reporting on this!!

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com /

snip:

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

As bmaz has reported, the CIA has sent a list of torture briefings to Crazy Pete Hoekstra on when and whom in Congress got briefed that the CIA was in the torture business. And ABC news, just off having to admit the CIA lied to them about torture in the past, has taken what the CIA gave them and treated it totally uncritically. Again.

Based on the list (which I've also obtained), they're out with a post claiming they've caught Pelosi in a contradiction.

The report, submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee and other Capitol Hill officials Wednesday, appears to contradict Pelosi’s statement last month that she was never told about the use of waterboarding or other special interrogation tactics.

Setting aside the fact that the list doesn't mention waterboarding specifically in its description of that briefing (it does in quite a few others), there are huge problems with using the list as a basis to claim anything.

First, there's this paragraph the CIA included in the letter they sent with the briefing list to Crazy Pete (which ABC didn't think important enough to include when they first posted this story):

snip;

CIA: "Here's a list, but we won't vouch for its accuracy."

ABC: "We've proven that Nancy was wrong!!"

ABC, after having been burned in the past, took documents that the CIA itself said might not be accurate, and treated them as accurate.

But it gets worse. ABC printed the following description, as if it were an accurate representation of the next set of torture briefings, which took place in February 2003.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

perhaps the best reporting being done on the torture info!!!

Pelosi’s Advisory On Abu Zubaydah And Torture

By: bmaz Thursday May 7, 2009 7:03 pm



As Marcy noted back on April 29th, the issue of Nancy Pelosi's briefing back in 2002 on the Bush/Cheney torture program, whether or not it was being applied to Abu Zubaydah and, if so, to what extent, has really turned into a he said-she said game. (See also here regarding the Porter Goss offensive against Pelosi and Harman).


http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/07/pelosis-ad...

snip;
Pelosi has already, of course, issued a denial through a spokesman. More he said-she said. Quite frankly, without more, today's play should be taken with a grain of salt. Multiple major news organizations have this hot off the press info right after Congress receives it and right wing hit rag Human Events (Jed Babbin) is pitching it as a slam on Pelosi. How very convenient. As further evidence of the need for grains of salt listen to Leon Panetta in his own cover letter transmitted with "the report":

“This letter presents the most thorough information we have on dates, locations, and names of all Members of Congress who were briefed by the CIA on enhanced interrogation techniques. This information, however, is drawn from the past files of the CIA and represents completed at the time and notes that summarized the best recollections of those individuals. In the end, you and the Committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened. We can make the MFRs available at CIA for staff review.” (Emphasis added)

As should be crystal clear by now, "those individuals" that worked on the "past files of the CIA" "at the time" were not necessarily the most even handed and/or disinterested arbiters of the truth. The CIA has a big bone in this fight, and it rests completely in implicating Pelosi, Harman and other members of Congress in their bad acts.


edit to add***ohhhhh and do read all the comments at Emptywheel..posters pick up many discrepencies in the CIA notes!

[Dogmudgeon]

48. Thanks for the info!

That's a lot of stuff for five minutes' work -- thanks for putting in the effort!

I am NOT, by any means, an uncritical supporter of Pelosi, but this is just "too good to be true". And I hadn't been aware that Pete Hoekstra was the point man on this.

I can't for the life of me understand WHY so many DUers claim to possess deep political insight, but when it comes down to it, as soon as a juicy rumor about one of their goats passes their way, they jump on it like a lounge lizard glomming onto a beach bunny. The GOP says "Jump!" and they ask "How high?"

Some of them can do complete analyses of the corporate support structure of the GOP, but when there's a chance to stiff "Madame Pelosi" or the eeevil Israel-loving Jane Harman, it's Scooby-Snack time!

Thanks again. I have some reading to do ...

--d!

[bdamomma]

50. this needs some investigation

interesting comments, a repug hit on the dems, that sounds pretty accurate, let the investigations begin, both repigs and dems are involved in this one.

[flyarm]

64. It needs an Independent Special Prosecutor..tell me Dick Cheney didn't set up these reports..

go ahead and tell me that?????? With Porter Goss...go read emptywheel and do read the comments..one of the reports has Goss as A CONGRESSMAN AT THE BRIEFING..WHEN HE WAS NO LONGER A CONGRESSMAN!!

AND THE CIA RELEASED THIS ALL TO Pete Hoekstra ??????????????

COME ON PEOPLE , USE YOUR HEADS!!

i WILL BE IN FRONT OF THE LINE WANTING TO HOLD ANYONE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THESE CRIMES AND I HAVE BEEN VERY VOCAL ABOUT IT HERE AND ELSEWHERE..I WANT ALL HELD ACCOUNTABLE..BUT KNOW ALL THE FACTS FIRST.. and the only way we will know the facts is with an Independent Special prosecutor..independent of both sides! Someone who represents we the people..not we the congress people.


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com /

snip:

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

As bmaz has reported, the CIA has sent a list of torture briefings to Crazy Pete Hoekstra on when and whom in Congress got briefed that the CIA was in the torture business. And ABC news, just off having to admit the CIA lied to them about torture in the past, has taken what the CIA gave them and treated it totally uncritically. Again.

Based on the list (which I've also obtained), they're out with a post claiming they've caught Pelosi in a contradiction.

The report, submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee and other Capitol Hill officials Wednesday, appears to contradict Pelosi’s statement last month that she was never told about the use of waterboarding or other special interrogation tactics.

Setting aside the fact that the list doesn't mention waterboarding specifically in its description of that briefing (it does in quite a few others), there are huge problems with using the list as a basis to claim anything.

First, there's this paragraph the CIA included in the letter they sent with the briefing list to Crazy Pete (which ABC didn't think important enough to include when they first posted this story):

snip;

CIA: "Here's a list, but we won't vouch for its accuracy."

ABC: "We've proven that Nancy was wrong!!"

ABC, after having been burned in the past, took documents that the CIA itself said might not be accurate, and treated them as accurate.

But it gets worse. ABC printed the following description, as if it were an accurate representation of the next set of torture briefings, which took place in February 2003.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

perhaps the best reporting being done on the torture info!!!

Pelosi’s Advisory On Abu Zubaydah And Torture

By: bmaz Thursday May 7, 2009 7:03 pm



As Marcy noted back on April 29th, the issue of Nancy Pelosi's briefing back in 2002 on the Bush/Cheney torture program, whether or not it was being applied to Abu Zubaydah and, if so, to what extent, has really turned into a he said-she said game. (See also here regarding the Porter Goss offensive against Pelosi and Harman).


http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/07/pelosis-ad...

snip;
Pelosi has already, of course, issued a denial through a spokesman. More he said-she said. Quite frankly, without more, today's play should be taken with a grain of salt. Multiple major news organizations have this hot off the press info right after Congress receives it and right wing hit rag Human Events (Jed Babbin) is pitching it as a slam on Pelosi. How very convenient. As further evidence of the need for grains of salt listen to Leon Panetta in his own cover letter transmitted with "the report":

“This letter presents the most thorough information we have on dates, locations, and names of all Members of Congress who were briefed by the CIA on enhanced interrogation techniques. This information, however, is drawn from the past files of the CIA and represents completed at the time and notes that summarized the best recollections of those individuals. In the end, you and the Committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened. We can make the MFRs available at CIA for staff review.” (Emphasis added)

As should be crystal clear by now, "those individuals" that worked on the "past files of the CIA" "at the time" were not necessarily the most even handed and/or disinterested arbiters of the truth. The CIA has a big bone in this fight, and it rests completely in implicating Pelosi, Harman and other members of Congress in their bad acts.


edit to add***ohhhhh and do read all the comments at Emptywheel..posters pick up many discrepencies in the CIA notes!

[condoleeza]

123. flyarm, I agree, people need to read everything on Emptywheel

including the comments on everything written in the past 2 days. Everything in my tin foil covered head says this is a set up. It is just too much information too suddenly to be anything else. The republicans are scared, and when they are scared they stop at nothing. If Pelosi knew and did nothing then fine - take her down for it - but I am nowhere near convinced she knew - yet.

[flyarm]

222. absolutely!! eom

[bdamomma]

85. alot of interesting comments too.

in Emptywheel too.

this article is interesting too, oh boy, there is alot of stuff going on which needs to be investigated.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124174688873899443.html

I think they should gather up Hoekstra, Goss, Roberts, Pelosi and Harman and Rockefeller I bet each has their own story, could it be CYA time?

[condoleeza]

131. how convenient! Typical repug tactics, they plant the seed and let the blogs go to work. n/t

[MadHound]

41. This is why we need a special prosecutor to get into this

To find out who knew what, when, who approved what, when, and who remained criminally complicit and silent. If it nabs some 'Pugs, so be it, if it nabs some Dems, so be it, but if we're going to restore any moral standing in our government, this entire mess must be cleaned up and those responsible brought to justice.

[bdamomma]

165. a independent special prosecutor.

[florida08]

42. this has already been outed

in April by Dennis Blair. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044188941045415.html

Blair wrote in a memo to his staff that "high value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa'ida organization that was attacking this country."


and again http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30440910/
In a letter sent Friday to National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Peter Hoekstra, asked for the complete list of briefings, attendees, and notes taken at the briefings.

[InfiniteThoughts]

44. what i don't understand .. can someone explain these entries ..

(19) - 9/6/06 - Senate Leadership briefing - The Director provided significant details, naming all EITs and providing a verbal description of most EITs. There was also a specific discussion of waterboarding.

On the same day, there were other meetings with SSCI Full committee(21), HPSCI full committee 22) where waterboarding was mentioned.

(28) 3/14/07 - Hearing of HPSCI Full Committee - The Director described EITs and made it clear to the committee that waterboarding had not been used in years.

Isn't the Director lying here? Why hasn't someone noticed this? How can the Director mention in some meetings that waterboarding was being used and turn-around and claim that waterboarding wasn't being used less than 7 months later. Shouldn't someone take him to task? Shouldn't he have to answer contempt of Senate/Congress charges?

The Gentleman in question - General Michael Hayden

[hugo_from_TN]

95. There is nothing inconsistent in those two entries.

The first entry does not say that waterboarding had recently been used. The description of the techniques was discussed and waterboarding was discussed.

[rateyes]

45. Is there any doubt now as to why Pelosi took impeachment off the table?

And, why, it seems that the Obama administration doesn't want to bring criminal charges? Most of us at DU knew this. It's why John Conyers talks the talk, but never seems to walk the walk. It's why Leahy, IMO, wants a commission that can give immunity.

I don't give a damn who is culpable for these crimes, Republican or Democrat, everyone who broke the law needs to be charged and tried. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

[bemildred]

86. Yah, hoping it would all just go away somehow. nt

[ieoeja]

46. Most of these briefings were part of the investigation into torture!!!!

The vast majority of this is like saying the police investigating a crime are now part of that criminal conspiracy. Even the very first says the briefing occurred AFTER the crimes were committed. Which beggars the question: why did they stop waterboarding? Did the Bush administration suddenly decide this was a bad idea? Or did Democrats push them to stop?

FYI: Pelosi is named as the recipient of one and only one briefing back in 2002.

I agree with everyone else here. This should be investigated. Both to find the guilty and not guilty.

[lovuian]

47. Pelosi and the rest were complicit and allowed the Torture

this is where Congress is so tainted

that Democrats now are just as criminal as Republicans

lets face the reality

[notesdev]

49. Republicans + Democrats = Klepto-tyranny

More and more I am feeling that the only way out for we the people is to wash the nation clean and start over.

[bdamomma]

52. yes, indeed the Congress needs a good cleaning out.

[No Elephants]

146. I do, too. But, I might leave Kucinich, Feingold and Kennedy in place. We'll see. When are

you and I meeting at the Capitol Building?

[notesdev]

159. Let's do it

You bring the pitchforks, I'll bring the torches.

[No Elephants]

180. I'm game. Give me a week to get my affairs in order. (Interpret that as you will.)

[flyarm]

55. You can't face reality when you are only reading part of the story..go read emptywheel!!!!!!!!

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com /

snip:

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

As bmaz has reported, the CIA has sent a list of torture briefings to Crazy Pete Hoekstra on when and whom in Congress got briefed that the CIA was in the torture business. And ABC news, just off having to admit the CIA lied to them about torture in the past, has taken what the CIA gave them and treated it totally uncritically. Again.

Based on the list (which I've also obtained), they're out with a post claiming they've caught Pelosi in a contradiction.

The report, submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee and other Capitol Hill officials Wednesday, appears to contradict Pelosi’s statement last month that she was never told about the use of waterboarding or other special interrogation tactics.

Setting aside the fact that the list doesn't mention waterboarding specifically in its description of that briefing (it does in quite a few others), there are huge problems with using the list as a basis to claim anything.

First, there's this paragraph the CIA included in the letter they sent with the briefing list to Crazy Pete (which ABC didn't think important enough to include when they first posted this story):

snip;

CIA: "Here's a list, but we won't vouch for its accuracy."

ABC: "We've proven that Nancy was wrong!!"

ABC, after having been burned in the past, took documents that the CIA itself said might not be accurate, and treated them as accurate.

But it gets worse. ABC printed the following description, as if it were an accurate representation of the next set of torture briefings, which took place in February 2003.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

perhaps the best reporting being done on the torture info!!!

Pelosi’s Advisory On Abu Zubaydah And Torture

By: bmaz Thursday May 7, 2009 7:03 pm



As Marcy noted back on April 29th, the issue of Nancy Pelosi's briefing back in 2002 on the Bush/Cheney torture program, whether or not it was being applied to Abu Zubaydah and, if so, to what extent, has really turned into a he said-she said game. (See also here regarding the Porter Goss offensive against Pelosi and Harman).


http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/07/pelosis-ad...

snip;
Pelosi has already, of course, issued a denial through a spokesman. More he said-she said. Quite frankly, without more, today's play should be taken with a grain of salt. Multiple major news organizations have this hot off the press info right after Congress receives it and right wing hit rag Human Events (Jed Babbin) is pitching it as a slam on Pelosi. How very convenient. As further evidence of the need for grains of salt listen to Leon Panetta in his own cover letter transmitted with "the report":

“This letter presents the most thorough information we have on dates, locations, and names of all Members of Congress who were briefed by the CIA on enhanced interrogation techniques. This information, however, is drawn from the past files of the CIA and represents completed at the time and notes that summarized the best recollections of those individuals. In the end, you and the Committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened. We can make the MFRs available at CIA for staff review.” (Emphasis added)

As should be crystal clear by now, "those individuals" that worked on the "past files of the CIA" "at the time" were not necessarily the most even handed and/or disinterested arbiters of the truth. The CIA has a big bone in this fight, and it rests completely in implicating Pelosi, Harman and other members of Congress in their bad acts.


edit to add***ohhhhh and do read all the comments at Emptywheel..posters pick up many discrepencies in the CIA notes!

[Deep13]

54. Frankly, I don't believe them.

It's just a little too convenient to be suddenly finding this now that the legal establishment is demanding prosecution. And knowing about torture is not the same thing as authorizing it.

[flyarm]

57. read this: CIA And Pete Hoekstra released this ..who has to CYA more?

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com /

snip:

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

As bmaz has reported, the CIA has sent a list of torture briefings to Crazy Pete Hoekstra on when and whom in Congress got briefed that the CIA was in the torture business. And ABC news, just off having to admit the CIA lied to them about torture in the past, has taken what the CIA gave them and treated it totally uncritically. Again.

Based on the list (which I've also obtained), they're out with a post claiming they've caught Pelosi in a contradiction.

The report, submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee and other Capitol Hill officials Wednesday, appears to contradict Pelosi’s statement last month that she was never told about the use of waterboarding or other special interrogation tactics.

Setting aside the fact that the list doesn't mention waterboarding specifically in its description of that briefing (it does in quite a few others), there are huge problems with using the list as a basis to claim anything.

First, there's this paragraph the CIA included in the letter they sent with the briefing list to Crazy Pete (which ABC didn't think important enough to include when they first posted this story):

snip;

CIA: "Here's a list, but we won't vouch for its accuracy."

ABC: "We've proven that Nancy was wrong!!"

ABC, after having been burned in the past, took documents that the CIA itself said might not be accurate, and treated them as accurate.

But it gets worse. ABC printed the following description, as if it were an accurate representation of the next set of torture briefings, which took place in February 2003.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

perhaps the best reporting being done on the torture info!!!

Pelosi’s Advisory On Abu Zubaydah And Torture

By: bmaz Thursday May 7, 2009 7:03 pm



As Marcy noted back on April 29th, the issue of Nancy Pelosi's briefing back in 2002 on the Bush/Cheney torture program, whether or not it was being applied to Abu Zubaydah and, if so, to what extent, has really turned into a he said-she said game. (See also here regarding the Porter Goss offensive against Pelosi and Harman).


http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/07/pelosis-ad...

snip;
Pelosi has already, of course, issued a denial through a spokesman. More he said-she said. Quite frankly, without more, today's play should be taken with a grain of salt. Multiple major news organizations have this hot off the press info right after Congress receives it and right wing hit rag Human Events (Jed Babbin) is pitching it as a slam on Pelosi. How very convenient. As further evidence of the need for grains of salt listen to Leon Panetta in his own cover letter transmitted with "the report":

“This letter presents the most thorough information we have on dates, locations, and names of all Members of Congress who were briefed by the CIA on enhanced interrogation techniques. This information, however, is drawn from the past files of the CIA and represents completed at the time and notes that summarized the best recollections of those individuals. In the end, you and the Committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened. We can make the MFRs available at CIA for staff review.” (Emphasis added)

As should be crystal clear by now, "those individuals" that worked on the "past files of the CIA" "at the time" were not necessarily the most even handed and/or disinterested arbiters of the truth. The CIA has a big bone in this fight, and it rests completely in implicating Pelosi, Harman and other members of Congress in their bad acts.


edit to add***ohhhhh and do read all the comments at Emptywheel..posters pick up many discrepencies in the CIA notes!

[Deep13]

62. Well, the source is good enough for Fox and Limbaugh.

Which is what it was intended to be.

[flyarm]

73. yep..so should we not all be questioning this now??????? read this:

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com /

snip:

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

As bmaz has reported, the CIA has sent a list of torture briefings to Crazy Pete Hoekstra on when and whom in Congress got briefed that the CIA was in the torture business. And ABC news, just off having to admit the CIA lied to them about torture in the past, has taken what the CIA gave them and treated it totally uncritically. Again.

Based on the list (which I've also obtained), they're out with a post claiming they've caught Pelosi in a contradiction.

The report, submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee and other Capitol Hill officials Wednesday, appears to contradict Pelosi’s statement last month that she was never told about the use of waterboarding or other special interrogation tactics.

Setting aside the fact that the list doesn't mention waterboarding specifically in its description of that briefing (it does in quite a few others), there are huge problems with using the list as a basis to claim anything.

First, there's this paragraph the CIA included in the letter they sent with the briefing list to Crazy Pete (which ABC didn't think important enough to include when they first posted this story):

snip;

CIA: "Here's a list, but we won't vouch for its accuracy."

ABC: "We've proven that Nancy was wrong!!"

ABC, after having been burned in the past, took documents that the CIA itself said might not be accurate, and treated them as accurate.

But it gets worse. ABC printed the following description, as if it were an accurate representation of the next set of torture briefings, which took place in February 2003.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

perhaps the best reporting being done on the torture info!!!

Pelosi’s Advisory On Abu Zubaydah And Torture

By: bmaz Thursday May 7, 2009 7:03 pm



As Marcy noted back on April 29th, the issue of Nancy Pelosi's briefing back in 2002 on the Bush/Cheney torture program, whether or not it was being applied to Abu Zubaydah and, if so, to what extent, has really turned into a he said-she said game. (See also here regarding the Porter Goss offensive against Pelosi and Harman).


http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/07/pelosis-ad...

snip;
Pelosi has already, of course, issued a denial through a spokesman. More he said-she said. Quite frankly, without more, today's play should be taken with a grain of salt. Multiple major news organizations have this hot off the press info right after Congress receives it and right wing hit rag Human Events (Jed Babbin) is pitching it as a slam on Pelosi. How very convenient. As further evidence of the need for grains of salt listen to Leon Panetta in his own cover letter transmitted with "the report":

“This letter presents the most thorough information we have on dates, locations, and names of all Members of Congress who were briefed by the CIA on enhanced interrogation techniques. This information, however, is drawn from the past files of the CIA and represents completed at the time and notes that summarized the best recollections of those individuals. In the end, you and the Committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened. We can make the MFRs available at CIA for staff review.” (Emphasis added)

As should be crystal clear by now, "those individuals" that worked on the "past files of the CIA" "at the time" were not necessarily the most even handed and/or disinterested arbiters of the truth. The CIA has a big bone in this fight, and it rests completely in implicating Pelosi, Harman and other members of Congress in their bad acts.


edit to add***ohhhhh and do read all the comments at Emptywheel..posters pick up many discrepencies in the CIA notes!

[Jeep789]

66. It may be exaggerated but it doesn't really matter

And no, knowing is not the same but these folks did authorize giving the administration the power to do anything they wanted. They did know what was going on, they did nothing to stop it and they authorized whatever power Bush requested. In short, they allowed it!

[flyarm]

78. you don't know that and i don't that is why an Independent prosecutor is needed

you and i only know what we are being told by the same media that lied to us for 8 years!!!!!! and By Pete Hoekstra and the CIA..the very people who have the most on the line in all this ...

please do some homework and don't take one source as your bible..remember this is being sold to you by the same media that brought you the war based on nothing but fucking lies and they knew they were lies!

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com /

snip:

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

As bmaz has reported, the CIA has sent a list of torture briefings to Crazy Pete Hoekstra on when and whom in Congress got briefed that the CIA was in the torture business. And ABC news, just off having to admit the CIA lied to them about torture in the past, has taken what the CIA gave them and treated it totally uncritically. Again.

Based on the list (which I've also obtained), they're out with a post claiming they've caught Pelosi in a contradiction.

The report, submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee and other Capitol Hill officials Wednesday, appears to contradict Pelosi’s statement last month that she was never told about the use of waterboarding or other special interrogation tactics.

Setting aside the fact that the list doesn't mention waterboarding specifically in its description of that briefing (it does in quite a few others), there are huge problems with using the list as a basis to claim anything.

First, there's this paragraph the CIA included in the letter they sent with the briefing list to Crazy Pete (which ABC didn't think important enough to include when they first posted this story):

snip;

CIA: "Here's a list, but we won't vouch for its accuracy."

ABC: "We've proven that Nancy was wrong!!"

ABC, after having been burned in the past, took documents that the CIA itself said might not be accurate, and treated them as accurate.

But it gets worse. ABC printed the following description, as if it were an accurate representation of the next set of torture briefings, which took place in February 2003.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

perhaps the best reporting being done on the torture info!!!

Pelosi’s Advisory On Abu Zubaydah And Torture

By: bmaz Thursday May 7, 2009 7:03 pm



As Marcy noted back on April 29th, the issue of Nancy Pelosi's briefing back in 2002 on the Bush/Cheney torture program, whether or not it was being applied to Abu Zubaydah and, if so, to what extent, has really turned into a he said-she said game. (See also here regarding the Porter Goss offensive against Pelosi and Harman).


http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/07/pelosis-ad...

snip;
Pelosi has already, of course, issued a denial through a spokesman. More he said-she said. Quite frankly, without more, today's play should be taken with a grain of salt. Multiple major news organizations have this hot off the press info right after Congress receives it and right wing hit rag Human Events (Jed Babbin) is pitching it as a slam on Pelosi. How very convenient. As further evidence of the need for grains of salt listen to Leon Panetta in his own cover letter transmitted with "the report":

“This letter presents the most thorough information we have on dates, locations, and names of all Members of Congress who were briefed by the CIA on enhanced interrogation techniques. This information, however, is drawn from the past files of the CIA and represents completed at the time and notes that summarized the best recollections of those individuals. In the end, you and the Committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened. We can make the MFRs available at CIA for staff review.” (Emphasis added)

As should be crystal clear by now, "those individuals" that worked on the "past files of the CIA" "at the time" were not necessarily the most even handed and/or disinterested arbiters of the truth. The CIA has a big bone in this fight, and it rests completely in implicating Pelosi, Harman and other members of Congress in their bad acts.


edit to add***ohhhhh and do read all the comments at Emptywheel..posters pick up many discrepencies in the CIA notes!

[Jeep789]

98. True we don't know explicitly what was told to them

but Pelosi admitted they told her water-boarding was legal. I was saying, that alone makes her guilty. I agree a full investigation is required though I am not certain a Special Prosecutor is the answer. I would hate to see the investigation go the same way the Fitzgerald Wilson investigation did.

[Truth2Tell]

192. Ferchissakes. Stop spamming the thread with this flyarm!

Five times was enough, don't you think?

[Mari333]

56. a lot of us knew this for a long time

complicit dems still being complicit . spineless. no wonder we havent seen any accountability on this issue or other issues.
remember how many of them signed onto the Patriot Act?
bastards.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

59. 9/4/02 Briefing from the PDF

Subject:

Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a discription of the particular EITs that had been employed.

Porter Goss
Nancy Pelosi

[thereismore]

60. Independent Prosecutor Now! Preferably someone who hasn't been involved please? nt

[thereismore]

61. Independent Prosecutor Now! Preferably someone who hasn't been involved please? nt

[Jeep789]

63. Out damn spot..

I have little sympathy for Pelosi or any other Dem who supported the Bush administration in any way. Of course they knew, we knew. It was obvious what was going on and to feign ignorance doesn't make one less guilty. Many of us wrote to those representatives and warned them that they would have blood on their hands if they voted to support the administration.

[florida08]

68. well I disagree with the sentiment here

Looks to me like this is an attempt by Dennis Blair to muddy the waters and stop any invesitgations and if there are he wants democrats to take the hit. According to the Washington Post it was Intelligence officials who released documents. Wouldn't that be the office of National Intelligence headed by Dennis Blair? I don't think it was Leon Panetta. He has a colorful past..look him up in wiki. Did democrats order the use EIT's? It's the bait and switch. I don't care either if guilty dems lose their seat but this smells of a setup. Maybe more research is needed.

[underpants]

135. No the Dems did not order the EIT's

I doubt they could have even had hearings on it --they were still in the majority at that point....hmmmm when the Republicans were in the majority were THEY briefed too? Did they say anything? Republicans were briefed on this at the same time as the Dems were right??? hmmmmm :think:

Personally I don't care about party-everyone involved needs to be at least exposed for public scrutiny but you are right this is bait and switch. It is blackmail too AND it is trying to shape the debate so everyone can agree to not have hearings and the public will think it is at least more reasonable to reach that decision.

[No Elephants]

147. A Special Prosecutor is needed. Or they need to revive the Independent Counsel statute.

IMO, no one sane makes up his or her mind on the basis of a battle of the online blogs.

[Captain Hilts]

69. Being briefed on it doesn't mean they had the power to stop it. nt

[rateyes]

72. If they were told that people were being tortured, and remained silent,

they are guilty. It's a crime to classify evidence of another crime.

[Captain Hilts]

74. Cong. leadership and Intel Cmte members do NOT have the right to squeal. Not their decision. nt

[rateyes]

79. The hell it isn't. If a war crime is confessed to, in their presence, they

have no right NOT to "squeal." They have an obligation, by law, to report it.

[Captain Hilts]

80. Change the rules. It's not up to individual discretion. nt

[rateyes]

92. Again, the hell it isn't. IF a WAR CRIME is confessed to

they are OBLIGATED BY LAW to report it. "Rules" don't override the Constitution. War crimes MUST be investigated according to the Convention on Torture, which as a treaty ratified by the Senate is part of the "supreme law of the land." There is NOTHING in the law which allows anyone to keep secret (classify) the use of torture. And, the Intelligence Committee members damn well know it.

Using the line, "I couldn't talk about it, because it was classified," is an excuse, not a justification.

[tritsofme]

91. Ever heard of the Pentagon Papers? A senator or congressman cannot be punished

for reading something into the Congressional record.

It might be their fall back argument, but their have been patriots much bolder.

[No Elephants]

221. They not only have the right, they have the obligation. That is why the

Constitution provides for checks and balances and that's why it made Congress the strongest of the 3 branches. And that is why Congress has Congressional Immunity for ANY use it chooses to make of classified information, with very few exceptions.

[No Elephants]

154. It does mean they had the power to expose it, though. And start impeachment. Or go to

court.

They are a co-equal branch and no one told Clean Table Pelosi she had no power to impeach. Hell, she could have become the first woman President in 2006 if they had found Bush and Cheney guilty simultaneously.

[redqueen]

256. If the briefings were classified, whom should she have complained to?

The Justice Department? The one packed with Bush cronies?

[sinkingfeeling]

71. That's all they've got as 'proof'? It's a simple document that says very little. Read it.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/briefings.pdf

[Captain Hilts]

82. Exactly. nt

[Jeep789]

103. Pelosi admits they told her water-boarding was legal

and she expects us to believe sh didn't think they would use it. She is basically calling us idiots or admitting to being one herself.

[Captain Hilts]

75. We have NO reason to believe the Bush Admin was frank or honest with Congress. nt

[No Elephants]

157. Yes, we do. Exactly for this reason. "Make them complicit and we'll be okay, no.

matter which party gets in after the next election."

How many times did you complain about the Iraq War or the "WOT" and have a Pub tell you the Democrats voted for it? That's how they operated. That's how they've always operated: "maybe we're not perfect, but the Democrats are just as bad. At least we wear flag pins.-- Oh, yeah, almost forgot: And Bill Clinton did it first."

I am not saying the Democrats definitely were complicit. I'm saying we are not without precedent. In the end, Congress cannot investigate this. We need a special prosecutor, period.

BTW, Bush was not frank with you or me, either. Did you KNOW they were torturing? Cause I sure did. Cheney kept saying waterboarding was not torture. Only the brain dead didn't get it. And neither the brain dead nor the complicit belong in the Congress of a nation this big and powerful.

[FarCenter]

81. Of course the Democratic leadership, and key members of the Intelligence Committee were breifed

Government runs on bureaucracy. It would be standard procedure to brief the top Democrats on these matters.

It insures that both parties are bought in.

[Captain Hilts]

83. Yes, but how brief was the briefing? How detailed? nt

[liberal N proud]

84. Explains why impeachment was never on the table

[sammythecat]

100. Oh yes,

and she was emphatically clear about that. Any kind of close scrutiny was NOT going to happen. That seemed very suspicious then, at the least, and is becoming very clear now, that the only reason for that was because she was not about to commit political suicide.

[Turbineguy]

89. I remember Bush blaming the Iraq war

on the Democrats. "They saw the same Intelligence I did!"

So the people working for the Bush Admin, doing the torture, release a document showing us they told Pelosi and others what was going on?

It seems a bit funny since there were those in the CIA who said that torture would not be effective. To me this looks like more Rovian cover-your-ass tactics.

First they say, "We do not torture!", then they say, "It was legal!", now they say "We informed Congress!". The next thing they have to say is "We told the American People and they approved it!".

If this country would have had republicans like this during the Eisenhower Administrations, we'd be counting our rubles.

[No Elephants]

166. There were bad Pubs during Ike's admin and racist Ike was one of them. His VP, Tricky Dick Nixon,

was another. Joe McCarthy was another. J. Edgar Hoover was another Need I go on?

And, on leaving office, Ike himself said how evil the mititary-industriaal complex was. Guess which political party would have predominated among members of the military industrial complex?

Every time people wax nostalgic over Ike or racist, McCarthy-loving Goldwater, I have to clean the screen on my laptop.

[Turbineguy]

187. Not waxing nostalgic

whatever many shortcomings they may have had, they weren't out to screw the country. They were at least competent at keeping our enemies at bay.

[No Elephants]

204. According to Ike, the military industrial complex was indeed out to screw the country. And Bushco

is using that same excuse for the torture we are posting about on this very thread--keeping our enemies at bay, keeping the homeland safe. Strong national defense is a byword and shibboleth of every Republican, whether it's true or not.

Apparently, we disagree, so I am going to leave it at that. This discussion doesn't belong on this thread anyway. Maybe it will come up on an appropriate thread someday and we can discuss further. But, to me, this thread is far too important right now to clutter with events from over a half century ago.

[MasonJar]

93. No wonder impeachment was off the table. More blackmail of our elected officials.

Pelosi and Rockefeller did protest, but were not allowed by law to speak about details in the public forum due to alleged national security claims by W (as I remember.) There should be a new law which allows elected officials and/or whistleblowers with significant knowledge of crimes to speak out without being charged with a crime. I am almost certain reports emerged saying that Pelosi and Rockefeller wrote the Bushista protesting the interrogation techniques but were prevented by law from exposing them. Does anyone else remember this? Am I wrong?

[rateyes]

96. There is no law that disallows the reporting of a war crime.

There is a law that says you can't keep knowledge of a war crime secret.

Yes, you remember correctly. Those briefed could have used the legal system to report the crime, and stayed within the law.

[flyarm]

111. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PEOPLE GO READ EMPTYWHEEL

NO ONE HAS DONE MORE INVESTIGATING THIS THAN THE GOOD PEOPLE THERE!!

AND DO READ THE COMMENTS !!

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/07/pelosis-advisory-on-abu-zubaydah-and-torture/
Pelosi’s Advisory On Abu Zubaydah And Torture
By: bmaz Thursday May 7, 2009 7:03 pm

SNIP:

As should be crystal clear by now, "those individuals" that worked on the "past files of the CIA" "at the time" were not necessarily the most even handed and/or disinterested arbiters of the truth. The CIA has a big bone in this fight, and it rests completely in implicating Pelosi, Harman and other members of Congress in their bad acts.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/

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.

But that's the real story of this briefing list--aside from what a bunch right wingers are claiming it says, the actual details of the briefing list notwithstanding. The real story is that the CIA was playing a bunch of games to be able to claim it had informed Congress, even while only informing some of Congress some things.

First, CIA has officially confirmed what I have been saying for weeks. The CIA first briefed Congress on torture on September 4, 2002, 35 days after CIA purportedly began waterboarding and much longer after we know CIA started torturing Abu Zubaydah. Moreover, we have on the record statements from Pelosi and Goss (and I've had even stronger assurances elsewhere) that CIA did not tell Congress they were already in the business of torture. Their discussions of torture were all prospective, and they may even have stated clearly that they had not used these techniques yet, which (if true) would be a clear and direct lie to Congress.



SNIP:

Now, it's possible that the people trying to smear Pelosi with this are correct and CIA mentioned waterboarding in September 2002. But that's not what the CIA says. Once you account for the fact that Jello Jay did not attend the February 4 briefing, the CIA says it first informed Democrats about waterboarding in July 2004, only after the CIA's own Inspector General had declared the program cruel and inhuman (and note, the Senate intelligence leaders, at least, got a copy of that document in June 2004, so the CIA couldn't very well pretend that they hadn't been waterboarding).

Note, too, that the CIA claims to have discussed legal issues in the July briefing with Harman and Goss, but not in the July briefing with Jello Jay and Roberts.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/07/cia-lying-to-abc-about-torture-again-abc-reporting-it-uncritically-again/



CIA Lying to ABC about Torture. Again. ABC Reporting It Uncritically. Again.
By: emptywheel Thursday May 7, 2009 8:21 pm 18
diggs
digg it

As bmaz has reported, the CIA has sent a list of torture briefings to Crazy Pete Hoekstra on when and whom in Congress got briefed that the CIA was in the torture business. And ABC news, just off having to admit the CIA lied to them about torture in the past, has taken what the CIA gave them and treated it totally uncritically. Again.

SNIP:

The report, submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee and other Capitol Hill officials Wednesday, appears to contradict Pelosi’s statement last month that she was never told about the use of waterboarding or other special interrogation tactics.

Setting aside the fact that the list doesn't mention waterboarding specifically in its description of that briefing (it does in quite a few others), there are huge problems with using the list as a basis to claim anything.

First, there's this paragraph the CIA included in the letter they sent with the briefing list to Crazy Pete (which ABC didn't think important enough to include when they first posted this story):

SNIP:

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

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?

One more thing, which is more about CYA at the CIA than outright deception--maybe. For just about every briefing, the CIA lists who from the CIA attended the briefing (by function): for example, it lists CTC (Counterterrorism), DCI (Director), DDCI (Deputy Director), OGC (General Counsel). The exception are six briefings in 2005 and one in 2006. That's particularly curious, given that Mary McCarthy has said the CIA lied during two briefings in 2005 (though note--that story says the briefings took place in February and June, which doesn't correlate with the list, which shows briefings in January, March, October, and November).

I'll have more to say about this list in the coming days (particularly about the way it shows CIA briefed Republicans on torture a lot more than it did Democrats--and even the CIA never asserts it told any Democrat about waterboarding until after the 2004 IG Report came out).

[mike_c]

94. pigs and war criminals, every goddamn one of them....

Yes, I'm angry and emotional about this. No, I'm not inclined to give anyone the benefit of the doubt because of the letter after their name. Our national leadership has violated the principles I believe in, and they did it in our names. If we rationalize this, if we accept it, we accept the crimes against humanity committed in our names. I can NEVER do that.

[davsand]

97. If she was briefed, what would she have been able to do about it?

I'm not defending anybody here, but I have to admit that my first thought was, given the laws about top secret information and all the panic about "homeland security" that the former regime tried to keep stirred up, I'm not exactly sure what Pelosi or any other Dem COULD have done about it if they ever were briefed about torture.

They would have certainly faced charges for leaking classified information, and it would have probably been not just ugly, but actual jail time for talking out of school.

Could Pelosi (or any Congressman for that matter) have done anything after being briefed without violating security acts?


Laura

[Hell Hath No Fury]

107. Ask Daniel Ellsberg about the whole "Top Secret" thing...

All it takes is a bit of courage to do the right thing.

[sammythecat]

116. Good question

and I don't have an answer with any specifics. I'm not wonkish enough to know if and when she cast any votes enabling wrongdoing. All I have is just the sense that over the past several years she, and others in the Democratic "leadership", have done nothing but comply with whatever Cheney/Bush wanted.

She's a very wealthy woman who's been a Congressional Representative for more than 20 years. Any information or advice she could have wanted was freely and abundantly available to her. I don't think it was impossible at all for her to make it clear that she thought the administration had broken the law, was continuing to break the law, and expected her to go along with it. She could have, at the least, been staunchly resistant. Instead, she was totally compliant.

[davsand]

We openly use the term "suicided" on here.

Again, I stress that I am not defending anyone, but we all know just how safe it was to be too critical of Bush et all at that point in time. I have to wonder how any public resistance on her part would have played out...

I think you have an obligation to the people when you hold office, but just how far does that extend?? The loss of your office would scare a few people. The threat of prison would put a few off. What about the fear for personal safety?

I honestly don't know the answers here, but I am willing to withhold judgment until I do.


Laura

[No Elephants]

182. Nancy flies on a HUGE private plane, at taxpyer expense and Paul Pelosi can afford all

the security in the world. And that is no coincidence. Paul owes Nancy big time.

Besides, people who run for Congress should know that courage might be required one day. There's even a book that says that.

I would have been willing to risk my own death to start impeachment proceedings or otherwise to end the torture and killings, and I am just your ordinary citizen. No salary, no power, no private plane, no 3rd in line for the Presidency.

Who says she gets to have all that, but none of the hard choices or risk and responsiblity that goes with it?

Stay home with the grandkids, if that's your deal, Nancy.

Nancy and Paul both owe us big time. And she is a public servant. That means more than banging a gavel and taking junkets.

[sammythecat]

228. As for any public resistance on her part,

and how it would have played out, who knows, but I have no doubt it would have made a difference. At the very least, speaking here of Pelosi, it would have preserved any honor and integrity she might have had. It also would have been an attempt to do her damn job as an elected representative and leader. She could have taken a stance the same, or similar, to that of Dennis Kucinich. He was a very outspoken vocal critic. Why wasn't she?

She now claims that essentially she was too stupid to realize what was really going on. She phrases it differently, of course, but that is what she is saying. I think it was more along the lines of self-interest and cowardice resulting in acquiescence to those in power which led ultimately to complicity. In either case, she failed utterly in her duty as an elected leader.

As to how far the obligations of elected office holders extend: Not too many years ago we forced people into the military. Today we have volunteers. These people are given the obligation to march themselves into situations where death and maiming is a certainty to occur. As often, and for as long a time, as our leaders tell them to. If the obligations of several hundred thousand young people extend that far, I would think that the obligations of our several hundred executive and legislative leaders extend pretty damn far. We should be able to expect they are people of some integrity, honor, and courage. People possessing those attributes don't need limits on their obligations. They will do what is necessary to do the right thing, and they will usually find sensible and effective ways to do that.

As to loss of office scaring a few people: I don't have words to express my contempt for people like that who's job performance has such a direct and profound effect on the lives and well-being of others.

I'm not sure what you mean about the personal safety issue, unless you're thinking of something along the lines of an "unfortunate plane crash" or something like that. Again, speaking of Pelosi, if she was genuinely concerned about assassination, she couldn't totally erase the possibility, but with her wealth and power she certainly could have taken steps to drastically minimize that risk. Anyone who aspires to, and acquires, a position of power has to realize there is at least some risk, no matter what their political stance.

Threat of prison: No matter how clumsy her opposition to the crimes and un-American behavior of Cheney/Bush I just can't believe Nancy Pelosi was ever going to face any time in prison. It's not going to happen, but if she ever does face that threat, it will be for her non-opposition resulting in complicity. I'm not a lawyer, but the way I understand it is, IF she had knowledge that crimes(torture) were being committed, she could be charged with "Accessory to a Crime". IF she knew crimes HAD been committed, and said nothing, she could be charged with "Accessory After the Fact".

Like you, I don't know all the facts. They're not all out yet. My own premature and utterly amateur opinion of what we'll find out about Nancy Pelosi if the whole truth of this mess ever comes out is this: She's either a doggedly gullible dimwit who needs to be replaced as soon as possible, or she's despicably complicit in some way in a lot of bad things and needs to be exposed.

Just in case: Any edge in tone I have here is certainly not directed at you. At all. I just get pretty exercised about our party leaderships performance this past decade.

[Usrename]

193. Forget about what she knew back then. It doesn't matter at all.

She certainly KNOWS by now that folks were tortured.

She knew WHILE BUSH WAS STILL PRESIDENT!!!

What is she doing NOW to atone for these crimes???

NOTHING!!!!!!

[Moochy]

245. What she could have done about it?

Oh, shown some fucking spine and broken the law? Leaked to the press? she was "powerless" but not as powerless as those being tortured and murdered in our name by the fascist bush administration.

[rateyes]

102. It's time to declassify every damned scrap of paper on this topic,

every email, every tape, etc. And, it's time for all those briefed to tell the world what they knew and when they knew it. NO MORE DAMNED EXCUSES! Confession is good for the soul, and for the country.

And, the shitheads who were in office (Bush/Cheney) need to be investigated, and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Are we a nation of laws, or not?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

104. I love some of the rationalization going on here...

Nancy Pelosi has FLAT OUT ADMITTED that she was briefed on "enhanced interrogation techniques" including waterboarding. The hair she is trying to split is that they never told her they actually used them, just that they might.

As mentioned above, this story is not new -- that key Democrats were being briefed by the administration was being reported at the time, and subsequently when the first torture allegations came out.

We knew this was happening, folks.

As for being "powerless" to take any sort of meaningful action, Nancy and the others could have taken a lesson in courage from Ellsberg and the many others who have stood up when it counted.

There is a whole lot of CYA going on on BOTH sides of the aisle.

Apppoint a Special Prosecutor and let the chips fall.

[MisterP]

213. waah! you're not reading the whole story! *stamps feet* n/t

[NoodleyAppendage]

110. Proves what we ALL KNEW. Repukes were SADISTS and the Dems were COWARDS.

Pelosi and Reid are a fucking joke.

J

[sammythecat]

132. +1x10

Leaders. The two of them together don't have a fraction of even one of the noble attributes a true leader should possess.

Maybe I expect too much, but in a country of more than 300 million, I expect more from the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader, or any representative or senator. I want them to at least try and rise to the occasion and show just a little courage and integrity. Leaders are supposed to have some of that.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

114. WTF.... instead of going after the architects of the torture ......

it seems they (repugs and MSM) are more interested in attacking the Dem's and Pelosi for being complicate.

fuck this ....and the Cheney "stay behinds in the alphabets....the DOJ, NSA, CIA and FBI

these weasels in the second and third tiers need to be ferreted out and replaced as soon as possible.

[truedelphi]

179. And are they even complicit?

The CIA is mostly Bush/Cheney people right now.

They have eagerly done the bidding of their masters.

Do we know if we can believe what they say?

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Baby Snooks]

126. We need an Independent Counsel..

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/04/no-special-prosecutor-torture

Unfortunately we will not have one.

"That was then. The independent counsel statute expired years ago, with neither Republicans nor Democrats complaining. That was because Republicans had hated Walsh. And Democrats had soured on independent counsels, thanks to a fellow named Kenneth Starr."

None of them caring about truth. Or about the interests of the American people.

When Molly Ivins said we should bang the pots and pans she didn't mean to bang them only with Republicans. She meant we should bang the pots and pans.

[No Elephants]

178. So?: That same Mother Jones article says that Congress can direct a Special Prosecutor to

give a report. Second, so what if the freakin Independent Counsel statute expired? Congress can pass a statute to appoint a special counsel just for this situation. And, no matter what Congress does or does not do, Holder can appoint a special Prosecutor.

[Baby Snooks]

183. Read the article again...

A special prosecutor is very limited. By the very Congress you speak of.

[No Elephants]

201. No, you read it again. Congress can expand the powers of the Special Prosecutor to include giving a

full report. And, as my prior post specified, Congress can pass a statute resurrecting Independent Counsel, either for all purposes or only for this one.

[Hissyspit]

130. UPDATE: CIA (Letter) Admits That Info About Torture Briefings For Dems May Not Be Accurat

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3868046&mesg_id=3868046

[underpants]

137. Thanks. This looks like interCIA fighting and DC manuevering to me

:shrug:

[L. Coyote]

152. It looks like covering up LYING to Congress to me. Bush torturers lying? Why am I not surprised.

The surprise here is all the people falling for the LIES!

[No Elephants]

188. Doesn't really matter one bit if it's accurate or not. We need a Special Prosecuto anyway.

[drgonzosghost]

138. We need to get rid of Pelosi anyway...

Little Ms. "Impeachment is off the table" needs to pay the piper too.

[robinlynne]

142. and Ms "We need dmestic spying" harman.

[drgonzosghost]

150. 500% Agreement! Let's clean house and get some credibility!

[LiberalFighter]

149. The Wall Street Journal? Personally, I wouldn't trust them or the CIA.

[pnwmom]

153. And we're going to believe a CIA document? How do we know it's not CYA?

CIA people knew they could be at risk for prosecution. They had a vested interest in spreading the blame around.

[No Elephants]

176. No, Im going to believe my lying eyes. I saw the photos of Abu Ghraib. I saw

Cheney on TV talking about waterboarding. I knew these guys were torturing. I knew Democrats should have started an impeachment proceeding in 2006, if not before. I knew Kucinich and a bunch of liberal organizations had been agitating for impeachment long before 2006. I knew that, AT THE VERY LEAST, someone should be starting something akin to the Watergate hearings.

Didn't you?

Why didn't Nancy Clean Table?

[Avalux]

155. I've come to the conclusion Bushco wouldn't have been able to do what they did without Dem enablers.

And I don't care about political party. No matter who it is - if they know torture was going on and chose to stay quiet, they are equally responsible. An investigation should not be partisan.

[keepCAblue]

156. International Criminal Court...

These crimes will never be acknowledged or tried by the powers-that-be that have shanghai'd our country. It will be up to the global community to bring these criminals to justice. Are Iraq and/or Afghanistan signatories of the International Criminal Court treaty? If so, then why isn't the ICC going after these barbarians?

From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime

#########################################

International Criminal Court

On July 1, 2002, the International Criminal Court, a treaty-based court located in The Hague, came into being for the prosecution of war crimes committed on or after that date. However, several nations, most notably the <b>United States, China, and Israel, have criticized the court and refuse to participate in it or to permit the court to have jurisdiction over their citizens.</b> Note, however, that a citizen of one of the 'objector nations' could still find himself before the Court if he were accused of committing war crimes in a country that was a state party, regardless of the fact that their country of origin was not a signatory.

War crimes are defined in the statute that established the International Criminal Court, which includes:

1. Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, such as:
1. Willful killing, or causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
2. Torture or inhumane treatment
3. Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property
4. Forcing a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power
5. Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial
6. Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer
7. Taking hostages
2. The following acts as part of an international conflict:
1. Directing attacks against civilians
2. Directing attacks against humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
3. Killing a surrendered combatant
4. Misusing a flag of truce
5. Settlement of occupied territory
6. Deportation of inhabitants of occupied territory
7. Using poison weapons
8. Using civilians as shields
9. Using child soldiers
3. The following acts as part of a non-international conflict:
1. Murder, cruel or degrading treatment and torture
2. Directing attacks against civilians, humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
3. Taking hostages
4. Summary execution
5. Pillage
6. Rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution or forced pregnancy

However the court only has jurisdiction over these crimes where they are "part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes"<6>

[sattahipdeep]

199. But on May 6, 2002 Bush administration withdrew the United States

But on May 6, 2002--less than a year before the invasion of Iraq--the
Bush administration withdrew the United States' signature on the
treaty and began pressuring other countries to approve bilateral
agreements requiring them not to surrender U.S. nationals to the ICC.

Three months later, George W. Bush signed a new law prohibiting any
U.S. cooperation with the International Criminal Court.

The law went so far as to include a provision authorizing the president
to "use all means necessary and appropriate," including a military invasion
of the Netherlands, to free U.S. personnel detained or imprisoned by the ICC.

....
THE HAGUE, 23/04/09 - The Netherlands wants the US to abolish the act that legitimises the use of force to free Americans if they should fall into the hands of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague.

"American legislation that would justify the use of force against the Netherlands to keep Americans out of the ICC is outdated and should be amended,"

http://www.nisnews.nl/public/230409_3.htm

And although U.S. ratification of the Rome Treaty isn't in the offing, Obama has pledged to work more closely with the International Criminal Court.

By ratifying Rome Statute, U.S. would signal that it believes justice and accountability for the worst human rights violations are indeed central to the rule of law, as well as a stable and just system of government.

[No Elephants]

200. International Court can be petitioned. Meanwhile, though, please see Reply # 198. Baby steps.

[iamthebandfanman]

158. is it still not okay to have dissent around here ? n/t

[ElboRuum]

169. So, Everyone Who Was Wondering Why There Are No Prosecutions...

...you have your answer.

[Swede Atlanta]

172. Let the facts be known.....

Let's let the facts be known on this. Let's give those now "accused" answer for what is in these reports before we jump to conclusions.

I for one am certain that the Democratic leadership is guilty. They had a constitutional duty to uphold the laws of this nation and they did nothing. If you know the President is breaking the law then you need to let it be known even if it places you in jeopardy by disclosing certain aspects of "classified" information.

If the Dems were advised then they all should be investigated, tried and incarcerated along with the Rethuglicans. That includes Pelosi, Reed, Biden, etc.

[nichomachus]

184. At least now we know why impeachment was off the table

The Democrats are co-conspirators.

[vincent_vega_lives]

190. Special Prosecutor

Do those here who are calling for one think one would have special magical powers? Does one really need to wonder why one hasn't been appointed yet, and most likely will never be? Hint: There are only two parties, and the one in power would have just as much to loose as the one out of power.

[PatrynXX]

191. how many are blue dogs?

ie democrats in name only. (with specter becoming the latest no doubt)

[Honeycombe8]

194. That article is incorrect about "quoting" Pelosi.

The rawstory article you quote from, paraphrases Pelosi's prior comments, "even though she’s publicly said she was never told about the use of waterboarding."

That is incorrect. I saw Pelosi on TV giving a press conference on this subject (about what she knew and when she knew it). I remember it clearly. Here's what she REALLY said:

She attended at least one meeting. There was discussion of (whatever the term is for increased interrogation methods) - that the W.H. has gotten a legal opinion from the DOJ that those methods, and waterboarding, were legal. Pelosi said she was specifically informed that WATERBOARDING AND THESE OTHER METHODS HAD NOT BEEN USED - YET - this was just an FYI to the committee to let them know, among other things, that they had gotten a clear on the legality of these methods. THEY TOLD HER THEY WOULD COME BACK TO THEM AND BRIEF THEM BEFORE THESE METHODS, INCL. WATERBOARDING, WOULD BE USED, if they were deemed to be necessary to use.

Take it for what it's worth, but that's what she said. Was she lying? I don't know.

This "release" sounds like hair splitting to me. The committee was informed that the WH intended to use these methods of interrogation and had gotten a "it's legal" clear from the DOJ. They may say now that that meant they were using them already, or would shortly be using them. Pelosi says they were supposed to come back to Congress and brief them before they took the "torture" step.

Hair splitting. Pelosi knew, if they weren't being used at that time, that those methods, incl. waterboarding, soon would be used. She didn't voice objection (I assume that because she didn't say in her press conference that she objected, which she would surely make clear now, if she had objected). BUT...it's also clear that the W.H. was playing their deceptive game again...it's clear the W.H. and the CIA did not clearly inform Congress that torture, and what kinds of torture, were being used, when they started using those methods.

They're both correct. And I don't see that it matters much.

[Enrique]

195. this memo "leaked?" Bullshit

this memo was composed soley to be released to a newspaper, with a political purpose.

Take away Raw Story's hype, and this is no big deal.

[Honeycombe8]

196. It doesn't matter. What could the Dems have done, anyway?

I am keeping my eye on the ball: those who issued the orders, those who carried them out. People who knew but did not object, to the extent you can prove that, is another, much lower category, and one that is not directly responsible for the illegal activities.

There's a ball. It's called the White House and CIA. Let's keep our eyes on it and not let it roll into Congress and try to shift the blame there.

[No Elephants]

216. Dems could have investigated and exposed it and they could have

started impeachment proceedings. And they can make any use of classified info they wish bc they have Congressional immunity.

There is a ball., It's called the rule of law, the Constitution, including checks and balances. NO ONE is saying let Bush or Cheney or the CIA off the hook. We are saying we need an independent person to serve as Special Prosecutor and/or Independent Counsel. And let the chips fall where they may. But, first and foremost, get at the truth and let the American people know what it is. And let it be above partisanship.

[Truth2Tell]

197. For the record,

I think it's important to remember that regardless of what these scumbag torture perpetrators briefed the Congress about, it IN NO WAY diminishes their own criminal culpability. Not one iota.

[bottomtheweaver]

206. Exactly. We know who the architects were, and we know who the torturers were.

This seems like a distraction and a side issue. While there may have been actionable offenses committed by members who were "briefed" and remained silent, they are secondary to the far more urgent crimes of torture and rendition.

[No Elephants]

219. No it doesn't. And this attempt at blackmailing Congress into silence should be investigated, along

with everything else. And let's not forget their warrantless snooping, either.

[flyarm]

226. 100% correct Truth2Tell..but the only way we will know the "FACTS" and Truth is :

an Independent Special Prosecutor..and let the chips fall as they may , and hold EACH AND EVERYONE FOUND GUILTY accountable to our laws and constitution!

And give the Special prosecutor full authorization to all secret classified documents..not this hodgepodge of partisan bullshit that is being force fed us , that even the CIA won't vouch for!!

Get it all out there..we are either a nation Predicated on the rule of law or we are not..and no one, and no partisan bullshit can be exempt!

No one is above the rule of law..no one!

[No Elephants]

198. One thing most posters here agree about: Someone independent of both Bushco and Congress HAS to

investigate.

Call your Senators and your Rep and ask that an Independent Counsel Statute be passed just to investigate Bushco--tortue, war crimes, feathering their own nests, suiciding people--whatever--EVERYTHING.

Also ask that, if a Special Prosecutor is appointed, Congress pass a statute authorizing him or her to report, as well as to investigate and prosecue.

Meanwhile, the ACLU, democrats.com and moveon.org are all offering petitions that you can "sign" online. Pick one or all and sign. Here is a link to ACLU's for your convenience.

https://secure.aclu.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=Nat_Petition_SpecialProsecutor_SEM&s_s=0416_AC

If you possibly can, donate something to an organization that is pushing for this. $2, $5, whatever you can do.


Please help one of these organizations that is trying to help us take back our nation. At least sign as many petitions as you can.


Right now, I cannot think of anything more important to our reputation in the world (and therefore our physical safety) or to our government. We have to send a BIG message, folks, or shut up and sit down, maybe forever.

[bottomtheweaver]

203. I'd be happy letting Congress handle it.

Whatever level of complicity Dems might have had, it wasn't their ballgame, and if they want to let themselves off the hook, that's fine with me as long as the owners get the book thrown in their faces. And the owners were Dick and George.

[No Elephants]

207. Wow, just wow. Your view seems to be in the minority on this thread, as it should be.

[bottomtheweaver]

208. Maybe, but these were not Dem policies

and whatever level of complicity Dems may have had is nowhere near that of the perps.

[No Elephants]

212. If they had any level of complicity, why not expose it? Who owns this country, the people or

Congress? Why shouldn't we have full disclosure via a report? Aren't we entitled to the information that enables us to cast informed votes? Isn't that what the First Amendment and the reporting requirements for the HOuse and Senate are about?

On edit: It goes without saying that Bush and Cheney get investigated first. But there is less than no reason to let anyone off the hook or allow anyone to hide behind their own investigation. Or some useless commission.

[bottomtheweaver]

215. I agree that would be helpful,

but I also think it might be counterproductive. The main imperative is to bring the torturers, and their bosses, to justice.

However, if Congress proves itself unwilling to investigate even the perps, as Feinstein's intel committee appears to be, then yes, an independent counsel will become absolutely necessary, let the chips fall where they may.

[bottomtheweaver]

211. p.s. no objections to an independent counsel, which would be ideal.

I agree with you there. What I'm saying is I'll take what I can get as long as it actually addresses the actual crimes, and Dem CIA briefings, which were probably 100% disinformation anyway, do not seem to me to be a central issue.

[No Elephants]

214. Then we agree. We cannot simply look away from anyone, though.

[bottomtheweaver]

225. Yes I believe we do.

Thanks for the discussion.

[The Stranger]

205. Pelosi has got to go. She is a fucking criminal along with the Bush Junta.

[ProSense]

230. Complete hogwash.

A briefing (despite whose version anyone believes) is not the same as writing the memos, approving the policy and carrying out the torture.

Pelosi has nothing to worry about and Republicans are running scared.

[Old Hob]

237. send the lot of them to prison for their wicked deeds.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

209. Collaborators. Stooges. Co-conspirators. And, some want them to do the investigations?

Kinda like having the New York Mafia Family "investigate" the New Jersey Mafia Family.

[spanone]

218. if EVERYONE knows a crime is committed, a crime is still committed

let the chips fall where they may ....illegal is bipartisan

[ProSense]

231. Exactly:

Public Awareness Of Government Misconduct Is Being Used To Justify Placing Government Officials Above The Law

Still, 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.

[panzerfaust]

220. Why is anyone surprised?

But, you know, the CIA never briefed me, and - somehow - I knew about it.

The problem is that our party's "leaders" lived in such fear of being called "un American" or "hurting the War On Terra" that they did not speak out then, and, of course, our party's complicity now comes back to bite us: As it SHOULD.

Who knew What When is of absolutely no importance.

What is important is to hold accountable those who allowed the torture to take place - if that includes Nancy-P, other leaders, Bush, Cheney, - even Obama - fine.

America needs to take the steps needed to regain the respect of the world, and of Americans.

[No Elephants]

223. If you feel that way, please consider signing one of the online petitions described in Reply 198.

Thank you.

[spanone]

227. i'm more curious bout the cia 'leaking' seems highly political to me

[Wednesdays]

229. K&R

:kick:

[livefreest]

232. let's declassify all those documents. and let's have a serious partisanship-free inquiry

these leaks that republicans and conservatives are saying prove Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in congress knew all about the torture miss the point. TORTURE REMAINS A CRIME AND THOSE WHO AUTHORIZED TORTURE HAVE TO BE PROSECUTED. It seems a few pages are being leaked but and just like Dick Cheney wants 2 pages out of a huge file to prove that torture works, these 10 pages can't be the whole file on briefings to congress by the CIA.


The Bush administration said America does not torture. Today we know at least 3 people were tortured. We also know the Bush Administration appointed cronies in all agencies where they needed them. How can we believe a few selected documents leaked from some one in the CIA to the Wall Street Journal of all newspapers.

Even the CIA can't guaranty the veracity of these documents, as reported here on DU: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3868046
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/cia-admits-that-info-about-torture-briefings-for-dems-may-not-be-accurate/


many documents are yet to be public. This far Nancy Pelosi word is still as good if not better than reports written by people who might be Dick Cheney's cronies.
Let's demand everything comes out in the open so that some interested people lose any power to arouse our anger, any power to distract us from prosecuting those who authorized torture.

[DallasNE]

234. The Wall Street Journal?

Isn't that now a Rupert Murdoch paper? Later events now show that story to be misleading at best. Duh! How disappointing to see something like this posted on DU.

[livefreest]

252. don't forget that any repuke can post anything here.

[Necon-Be-Gone]

235. Hold on there

I've watched Gonzales and other Bush officials testify under oath to Congress. Why would anyone assume Pelosi or other Democrats were given complete and thorough briefings of what the Administration was doing? Bush has repeatedly lied to the US about torture and wire-tapping. Cheney wouldn't even tell us who he met with in forming his national energy program. All hush, hush and secret. Even their e-mails were routed to RNC office to keep them secret.

Bush has been the most secretive administration and now everyone thinks, behind closed doors they fully briefed the Dems. Nope, sure don't believe that.

Perhaps the CIA is playing CYA. The FBI wanted to have absolutely nothing to do with torturing people.

I don't think we should assume too much until people start testifying under oath.

[ColbertWatcher]

236. Good point and welcome to DU! n/t

[Grinchie]

238. Why would the CIA have to "Leak" anything?

Isn't it strange that an organization that supposedly works for the greater good of the country has to "Leak" relevant information?

[readmoreoften]

241. I'm surprised that people are surprised. /nt

[santamargarita]

243. This was a setup from the beginning by that Goddamn Bush Crime Family

:nuke:

[bobthedrummer]

253. kick

[bobthedrummer]

254. "CIA Headquarters Micromanaged Torture" (by Jason Leopold 5-11-09 Truthout) kick

htt://www.truthout.org/051109J

[Dappleganger]

255. IF it is true...

it is time to clean the entire house and not just the part which disgusts us the most.
My vote is for integrity.

[redqueen]

257. What were they supposed to do? The Justice Dept was packed with Bush cronies.

The briefings were classified, so no going to the press (unless by leaks... which *DID* happen).

So... what other options were there?

[AtomicKitten]

258. I consider myself a citizen first and then a Democrat.

I'm suspicious of this leak because it is clear the Bush Admin is trying to mitigate their crimes by muddying the waters.

That said, let the sun shine in and let the chips fall where they may!

Torture is against federal law, the Constitution, and international law. It is not something we can just sweep under the carpet. We need to know the whole truth and we are compelled to prosecute war crimes.

[redqueen]

259. Agreed. This is a bluff.

They're trying to intimidate people again.

Not this time.

[bobthedrummer]

260. kick