« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
Add this to our list of legislators who knew about the CIA's recording of interrogations of al-Qaeda detainees: in September 2002 and again in 2003, the leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees were briefed on what goes on in those interrogations. That means ex-Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), Sen. Richard Shelby, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), and ex-Rep. Porter Goss (R-FL) knew about waterboarding prisoners like Abu Zubaydah, leader of al-Qaeda's military committee. Publicly, The Washington Post reports, they said nothing, because privately, they didn't object -- until waterboarding became public knowledge, and some of the lawmakers expressed outrage. But some are disputing that account, though they're not giving specifics. From the Post:
Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."Congressional officials say the groups' ability to challenge the practices was hampered by strict rules of secrecy that prohibited them from being able to take notes or consult legal experts or members of their own staffs. And while various officials have described the briefings as detailed and graphic, it is unclear precisely what members were told about waterboarding and how it is conducted. Several officials familiar with the briefings also recalled that the meetings were marked by an atmosphere of deep concern about the possibility of an imminent terrorist attack.
"In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic," said one U.S. official present during the early briefings. "But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.' "
That U.S. official is clearly engaging in pushback. The revelation that the CIA videotaped interrogations in 2002 and then destroyed their recordings in 2005 threatens to lead to the agency's nightmare scenario: prosecution for potential war crimes. On Saturday, the Justice Department, along with the CIA's inspector general, opened an investigation into the destruction. The agency wants to make clear that it thought it had legal cover from the White House and Justice Department in 2002 to torture detainees -- and political cover from the relevant leaders of the intelligence committees in Congress. On the former point, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and then-Justice Department official John Yoo made sure of it. And on that latter point, it's clear from the Washington Post story that Congress did indeed sign on. As the investigations proceed, the agency will argue that they were not in this alone.
Bob Graham, who left the Senate in 2005, has said he has no recollection of the briefings. So that's one denial. Porter Goss, who became CIA Director in 2004, says all involved knew about the interrogations. Jay Rockefeller's story is complicated -- he began public objection to waterboarding in 2005 -- and is liable to change. Jane Harman says she won't discuss anything classified: a cynic might say that at least she's consistent. Pat Roberts didn't return my Friday phone call.
So what did Pelosi know? From the Post:
Pelosi declined to comment directly on her reaction to the classified briefings. But a congressional source familiar with Pelosi's position on the matter said the California lawmaker did recall discussions about enhanced interrogation. The source said Pelosi recalls that techniques described by the CIA were still in the planning stage -- they had been designed and cleared with agency lawyers but not yet put in practice -- and acknowledged that Pelosi did not raise objections at the time.
Interesting. That's the first dispute of the substance of the 2002 briefing. But does that mean that Pelosi knew detainees would be waterboarded, or did she only know something more generic? Her elaboration yesterday:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, among the lawmakers who attended the briefing, issued a statement on Sunday saying that she eventually did protest the techniques and that she concurred with objections raised by a Democratic colleague in a letter to the C.I.A. in early 2003.
Watch that letter never be released, under cover of classification. But is that Pelosi's last word on what she knew? We'll see.
Update: I originally forgot that Richard Shelby, (R-AK), was the vice chairman of the Senate intelligence committee in 2002. Sorry for the omission. To be clear, the leadership of the Senate and House intel committees in 2002 was Graham, Shelby, Goss and Pelosi. In 2003, it was Rockefeller, Roberts, Goss and Harman.
Comments (43)
eric wrote on December 10, 2007 9:53 AM:it is a moment like this that makes me feel so proud to a 'Murican.
Slim wrote on December 10, 2007 9:55 AM:This explains a lot.
ARG in Chicago wrote on December 10, 2007 9:57 AM:The "classified" nature of these activities and the briefings makes it very difficult to know what really happened.
This is by design, of course.
While I am willing to believe that some Democrats were pursuaded (or coerced) to "go along" with some of this stuff, I am NOT convinced that they were really given a full accounting of what was happening. (Did they SEE the video tapes? Did they KNOW that the interrogations would be recorded? Were the techniques described in any detail -- and just how much detail, and how were they characterized??)
Another planted story, quoting an anonymous "official", does not hold very much weight these days.
-- ARG
Lisa wrote on December 10, 2007 9:57 AM:And on that latter point, it's clear from the Washington Post story that Congress did indeed sign on. As the investigations proceed, the agency will argue that they were not in this alone.
....and gosh darn it, if the WaPo says so, it must be true! Based on other tactics of this administration, I don't find it at all hard to believe that these breifings weren't a case of "yes here's a tape of us waterboarding someone..are you OK with that?...You are? Now we're good" Give me a break.
noshrub wrote on December 10, 2007 9:59 AM:Oh...now I know what happened with habeus corpus.
Don wrote on December 10, 2007 10:01 AM:Now I ask you. If you caught yourself a terrorist and you were determined to torture information out of him, why on god's green earth would you bring a video recorder?
Training purposes my ass. That's what the SEAR training is for.
I'll guarantee you that someone in the administration viewed that video tape before it was destroyed.
I wonder if Saddam Hussein viewed the tapes from his torture chambers with the same satisfaction.
Violet Cauthon wrote on December 10, 2007 10:04 AM:It's a disgrace to have such a partnership as Bush-Cheney in our White House. They released the news about Congress being briefed in a deliberate attempt to smear the Democrats. Small minds, small deeds. January 20, 2009 cannot get here fast enough.
pol wrote on December 10, 2007 10:09 AM:I can't and won't believe that Bob Graham knew about waterboarding and went along willingly. However, he was "bursting' at the seams" back then with information that he knew, but couldn't tell, so who knows?
Anonymous wrote on December 10, 2007 10:09 AM:Anybody for a third party?
guyermo wrote on December 10, 2007 10:15 AM:Just how many investigations is the CIA IG involved in now? Ostensibly, he's going to be a busy person for the remainder of Bush's term.
Col Bat Guano wrote on December 10, 2007 10:15 AM:The report switches around from waterboarding to "enhanced interrogation techniques" without making it clear that the first is always included in the second. While not exactly profiles in courage, what do people expect them to have done in 2002? I realize time heals all wounds, but does anyone recall the mood of the country back then? I defy anyone to contend a politician should have adopted the "the CIA is being to harsh with Al Qaeda operatives" back then. Max Cleland got morphed into Osama bin Laden for voting against the Homeland Security bill and lost.
Cordier wrote on December 10, 2007 10:15 AM:Is it possible that now that this dirty little secret of Nancy's is out she'll show some backbone? Who knows, she may have been threatened w/exposure to having been complicit w/the administration. Now that this ship has sailed, perhaps she'll start representing the Dems for a change...
S. L. wrote on December 10, 2007 10:18 AM:This Administration has survived as long as it has by the practice of mutual blackmail. They read their enemies in just enough so that if they later object the administration can say, "You knew all along; why didn't you say anything sooner?"
I think that's why Colon Powell stayed on the reservation for so long.
That being said, I remember a comment by Jay Rockefeller (before Abu Ghraib?)saying torture might be justified if it could save American lives. If America ever manages to muster up the outrage that the torture issue deserves, we need to hold accountable these Democrats who were complicit in the torture decisions as well: conspiracy to commit torture carries a sentence of life in prison, if a death results from the torture.
SocraticGadfly wrote on December 10, 2007 10:19 AM:Anonymous, we already have a third party. Vote Green.
Bat Guano... there's still three years difference from 2002 to 2005, with intervening factors like the 2004 elections. Sorry, I'm not giving away free passes.
Dr Zoom wrote on December 10, 2007 10:22 AM:There's undoubtedly more to the story, BUT ... It's all consistent with the way the Dems have rolled over for the Rethuglicans throughout the Bush term. And it may explain why Pelosi has refused to entertain impeachment proceedings. But now that she's been outed (and, say what you will, outed she has been - that was about as weak a denial as one can imagine) will she reconsider - or is there other damning information that the Rethugs are holding over her head?
At least now she and that pathetic excuse for a Senator, Jay Rockefeller, can't just do their normal whitewash assist for the Administration.
m wrote on December 10, 2007 10:23 AM:The White House and intel community leadership consistently refuse to say whether we use waterboarding -- until, that is, it becomes politically convenient to leak info implying that we *do* waterboard.
dave wrote on December 10, 2007 10:26 AM:not to be an apologist for any pol dem or rep*g b*t I s*spect they were told not shown a tape abo*t waterboarding. I know I didn't realize what waterboarding really was *ntil I heard a very detailed explanation of it.
dave
phred wrote on December 10, 2007 10:27 AM:*replace with last vowel of alphabet
Spencer --
You list 6 names in your article based on the story in the Post. As I understand it, the Gang of 8 would have been briefed.
Who were the other two Republicans?
Have you called them to get their stories?
lambert strether wrote on December 10, 2007 10:29 AM:No doubt the Democrats were told enough to ensure complicity, and yet not enough to give them power over criminal actors. And that would be why the tapes were destroyed. Eh?
Daniel A. Greenbaum wrote on December 10, 2007 10:34 AM:It is now clear that what passes for Congressonal
oversight needs to be overhauled. I understand
how members of Congress cannot disclose classified information.
However, they should not acquiesce in acts that
are both immoral and perhaps illegal.
It is time for Congress to show some institutional
Azdak wrote on December 10, 2007 10:36 AM:backbone and stand up for their own independence.
This is an issue that requires a complete public hearing. We need to know exactly how this was presented by the Bush administration and what the response was.
The statement:
"In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic," said one U.S. official present during the early briefings."
is meant to be an excuse, but, in fact it is the most damning of all. It's precisely during a time of chaos and panic that we need our leaders to act thoughtfully and lawfully.
Unless the administration presentation was a complete fabrication, I can only conclude that Ms Pelosi must resign her Speaker position.
HomeFries wrote on December 10, 2007 10:37 AM:Didn't WaPo say Obama was a Muslim? Ah credibility, we hardly knew ye.
Dennis wrote on December 10, 2007 10:39 AM:Sen. Nancy Pelosi voted to affirm Judge Michael Mukasey to Attorney General because she knew one day he might be covering her ass.
And knowing he one day might have to be covering asses who knew about the waterboarding is exactly why Mukasey refused to answer as to whether or not he approved of waterboarding.
He was not truthful when he said he didn't know what all waterboarding entailed.
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
danger wrote on December 10, 2007 10:40 AM:Daniel - Oversight needs to be overhauled? I think what we really need is to purge every single neo-con and conflicting interest out of the government to make it truly independent. We can start also with prohibiting any consecutive terms in congress, seeing that it seems to be a great source for corruption.
jolly ranchero wrote on December 10, 2007 10:41 AM:Just why are torture sessions videotaped? Does anyone here have a serious answer?
Monzie wrote on December 10, 2007 10:47 AM:Note, CIA described techniques that were allegedly in the planning stage...might the word planning have been misleading...as in, much can happen between plan and implementation?
pat wrote on December 10, 2007 10:48 AM:face it, folks, all of these people are afraid of only ONE THING: LOSING the next election.
Where did we get the idea that WE are the only country whose people deserve to live? Every time I hear the phrase "to save American lives" I want to scream.
Chesire111 wrote on December 10, 2007 11:40 AM:Hunh! Apparently Nader was right after all.
"May the whores of the Empire
anon wrote on December 10, 2007 11:51 AM:Lie awake in their beds
And sweat as they count out the sins on their heads..."
...Is it possible that now that this dirty little secret of Nancy's is out she'll show some backbone?...
No.
Shard wrote on December 10, 2007 12:43 PM:Oh my God! If I act like a human being with a conscience, they'll say I'm soft on terror!!If they've been detained they must be terrorists - where's my Nazi she-wolf outfit and Ann Coulter mask?!
Jusef White wrote on December 10, 2007 12:56 PM:This is the absolute last straw for me.. Pelosi has got to go...and now. she's a wolf in sheeps clothing and has done immesurable harm to the Democrats' cause. You hold onto her at your peril.
jimijazz wrote on December 10, 2007 1:02 PM:This is why Pelosi has been so obstinate about impeachment. Too many democrats like Harman and Pelosi involved in Bush's dirt.
Tom in Ma wrote on December 10, 2007 1:02 PM:Please note how this story shifts public attention from those who torture detainees to those who might have known something about it and did not stop it.
One of the GOP's primary tactics has been the co-option of Congressional Democrats, by gathering just enough consent to claim bi-partisan approval.
The result is that not only do the administration get what is wants for the short term -- they also divide the Democrats down the road.
Remember that the GOP and the administration have had almost all the institutional power for most of the Iraq War, and have done whatever THEY wanted to do.
They are responsible for what has happened. ALL OF OUR CRITICISM should be directed at the administration.
It is falling into their trap to waste our time trying to determine the exact level of culpability of various congressional Democrats.
Blog van Winkle wrote on December 10, 2007 1:04 PM:Where did we get the idea that WE are the only country whose people deserve to live? Every time I hear the phrase "to save American lives" I want to scream.
(from Pat)
Maybe we shouldn't put you in charge of our nations National Security.Everybody else in the world always has good intentions toward others, so the US would never be molested- Pollyanna wake up!
If only Al Gore was elected Global Chancellor,he and the elites could rule the world, life would be wonderful then.If anyone disagreed he could just do what Stalin and,Pol-Pot did. Oh wait was what they did the fault of Americans too?
--------------------------------------
The statement:
"In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic," said one U.S. official present during the early briefings."
This is the real issue,are you going to give out moral platitudes or stand up and defend what is importatnt to you.You are like an armchair quaterback that says " I would just talk that criminally insane person out of my house and gently persuade him to leave my home always insuring his positive veiw of himself and their self-recpect."
jimijazz wrote on December 10, 2007 1:08 PM:If you knew about and did nothing to stop it - much less expose it to the public - then you're involved.
Live free or die wrote on December 10, 2007 1:09 PM:Tom Baby- You mean to say if someone wears a Donkey pin they get free pass. They are not held accountable for their action or inaction?
S.L. wrote on December 10, 2007 1:28 PM:Tom Baby/Live free or die -
True, it was the administration that made the decision to sanction and implement a policy of torture, and, true, they are the most deserving of blame; but we keep looking to the Democrats to clean up the mess when they are neck-deep in the muck themselves. However, that's why there are *three* branches of government. Special prosecutor--as Biden says--but not just for the destroyed tapes, but to determine who approved and who carried out the policy of torture. (And might I suggest Patrick Fitzgerald--currently pursuing the gang of Chicago cops who tortured African-American prisoners into false confessions for 20 years but suffered no jail time and are still receiving their pensions.)
gllwng wrote on December 10, 2007 1:46 PM:Hi, I have been looking for better choices for cheaper travel than the big outfits who have all the same results and prices.
Anonymous wrote on December 10, 2007 3:02 PM:I like http://www.cheap-discount-airfare.com but does anyone else have suggestions?
Shelby is from Alabama (AL) not Alaska (AK).
ched wrote on December 10, 2007 3:54 PM:She's got to go. Rocky too. That's all.
Anoneerat wrote on December 19, 2007 2:43 PM:All of a sudden, Cindy Sheehan's candidacy doesn't look so bad.
[color=#999999]
escortservLatvians wrote on December 29, 2007 9:03 PM:And the last thing he listened to were the breaks when we stopped. He didn't want to hear any squealing from them. [/color]
Riga,Latvia best escort girls, massage salons, escort boys and sauna. All information about adult's entertainment in Riga, Latvia.
http://www.ladies.lv friend www.escort-service.lv
escortservLatvians wrote on January 10, 2008 8:16 PM:Riga,Latvia best escort girls, massage salons, escort boys and sauna. All information about adult's entertainment in Riga, Latvia.
http://www.ladies.lv friend www.escort-service.lv .