Update....
Both Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and former Sen. Bob Graham (D-
Fla.), former chairmen of the Senate intelligence committee, have
challenged the accuracy of the CIA records on briefings on the
detainee program, buttressing Pelosi’s claim that she was told during
that 2002 briefing only that “enhanced interrogation techniques” were
authorized for use, not that they were employed.
House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey. The Wisconsin
Democrat released a letter to CIA Director Leon Panetta saying that
the same CIA records that said Pelosi was briefed on waterboarding
also said that an Appropriations Committee staffer had attended an
agency briefing in 2006. In fact, Panetta said, the aide was prevented
from attending.
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).
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. We know this to be false.
In July 2004, the CIA briefed the Chairman and Vice Chairman of
the Committee on the facts and conclusions of the Inspector General
special review. The CIA indicated at that time that it was seeking
OLC’s legal analysis on whether the program was consistent with the
substantive provisions of Article 16 of the Convention Against
Torture.
Given the way the SSCI narrative focuses on the constitutional
amendments named under CAT (the 5th, 8th, and 14th), I suspect CIA was
informed in no uncertain terms they would have to account for these in
the briefing. If they did not record the fact, it suggests they were
trying to claim deniability for that key issue (though that is
speculative on my part).
The CIA seems to have no memory of the details of the 2005 briefings
(and, as WO has pointed out, seems to have been unsure who was HPSCI
Chair and who was DCIA, since it claims that Porter Goss, then head of
CIA, attended a March 8, 2004 2005 [ed--fixed late, sorry] hearing as
HPSCI Chair). That's rather curious as Mary McCarthy has alleged that
the CIA briefers in two hearings in 2005 lied to Congress. At least
one of these briefings would have also featured the Senators asking
why they fuck OLC ignored the 8th Amendment (and the CAT generally) in
its December 2004 opinion. It includes briefings when Jello Jay was
beginning to ask for more details on the torture program, to no avail.
And, finally, it includes briefings when Congress should have been
briefed about the destroyed torture tapes, but wasn't. All of that?
The CIA seems to have little memory of it.
Then there's the slew of Republican-only briefings in 2005, just after
the Senate approved the McCain Amendment limiting torture use. As I've
explained the most suspicious of those is the briefing of the two pro-
torture Republicans holding DOD's purse strings.
Until, finally, in 2006, it finally gets around to briefing the full
intelligence committees but not yet the full Gang of Eight, leaving
off the House leadership, including Nancy Pelosi. Anyone wonder why
Jane Harman got her very own briefing on September 6, 2006, the day
Bush finally came clean as a tortuer? I do.
In short, in spite of what Republicans tell you (and therefore ABC
prints), this is actually an utter damning chronology of CIA contempt
for their obligations to inform Congress (particularly Democrats in
Congress)
On May 17, 3:52 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote:
> Holly,
>
> How you gathered that I somehow suggested this, from any of my posts, is
> just amazing. I have never suggested anything of the sort. As a matter of
> fact, the recent information released by the Obama Administration
> demostrates that the CIA was methodical and quite careful to insure that
> they were within the confines of the law.
>
> My point is simple. There was no authorized torture, period. The United
> States Army, (or any of our military branches) do not have the means nor
> the capability to utilize enhanced interrogation techniques. The Army is
> limited by the guidelines listed in the Army Field Manual, as it should
> be. Those who violated the written military policy should be prosceuted,
> as they were.
>
> The CIA is not limited to the Army Field Manual, and great as stated, the
> CIA as well as the Bush Administration went to great lengths and extreme
> measures to insure that the CIA did not cross the proverbial line.....There
> was no "torture" while administering enhanced interrogation techniques. I
> say this after extensive study of the facts and information that has been
> released to date. It is my qualified opinion that the enhanced
> interrogation techniques did not constitute torture. I say this without any
> partisanship whatsoever. My opinion could change, if there is more
> evidence that is released that may in fact constitute "torture" but to date,
> we have seen no such evidence.
>
> Sean is a Moonbat. He has no understanding of what actually took place or
> transpired, and I would surmise that he has not even read the Memoranda
> by Jay Bybee, Steven Bradbury, John Yoo, or the "Rumsfeld Defense Department
> Working Group". All Sugarshack can do, and all Sugarshack has done, is
> mimic those very partisan individuals who are on a hate campaign against the
> former Administration, but have to date, not attempted to attach any legal
> precepts or rational, cognitive critical thinking to their argument.
> "Torture" is an easy, fun word for folks like Sean to sling out, yet they
> have no clue what the legal definition of torture is.
>
> On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Hollywood <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>
>
> > KIT,
>
> > What are you saying? That the CIA operates completely outside U.S.
> > civil and criminal codes AND the UCMJ and is not subject to ANY of
> > those codes, regulations or laws?
>
> > On May 17, 9:17 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Sean,
>
> > > So, this is really what it boils down to, as I suspicioned. What you are
> > > really saying is, "I Hate Bush, But I Don't Know Why".
>
> > > What transpired at Abu Gharib is not at all what transpired with enhanced
> > > interrogation techniques by the CIA. The Army has no mechanism other
> > than
> > > the Army Field Manual to interrogate prisoners. Those individuals were
> > > prosecuted because they were outside of Army regulations.
>
> > > On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 3:26 AM, VT VirtualTruth
> > > <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> > > > If we tried the little guys for what happened at Abu Gharib
> > > > then the precedent has already been set for the ENTIRE
> > > > Bush Administration.
>
> > > > I believe Nixon was also Impeached for his crimes
> > > > during the Vietnam war.
>
> > > > Nixon resigned rather than face impeachment for his crimes
> > > > while in office, and Republicans pushed all out to impeach
> > > > Clinton while in office about a lie over a BJ.
>
> > > > So both your reasons for calling me a traitor have both been
> > > > proven false based on previous precedent.
>
> > > > You have nothing left to say, because you have run
> > > > out of realistic arguments.
>
> > > > On May 16, 4:47 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > Hey Sean!!
>
> > > > > Actually, I thought my post was rather witty!!
>
> > > > > In all honesty, you seem like a bright, intelligent, (I am assuming
> > > > younger
> > > > > than me) man. It is one thing to question our governments'
> > policies,
> > > > and
> > > > > quite another to jump on a traitorous bandwagon, accusing our
> > President,
> > > > > (any President!) during a time of war, of war crimes.
>
> > > > > I have nothing else to say on the subject. Based on all of the
> > > > information
> > > > > that has been released to date, I don't believe that we ever
> > "tortured"
> > > > > anyone. That this is just a hyped up term used by far left
> > extremists
> > > > who
> > > > > are either uninformed, and/or have an Anti-American agenda. One or
> > the
> > > > > other....
>
> > > > > Until such time as more information has been released, (which
> > initially I
> > > > > was opposed to, but now, because the Obama Administration chose to
> > > > release
> > > > > the several Memoranda by Bybee and Bradbury) I want to see everything
> > > > > released, including the documents from July 2004 that former Vice
> > > > President
> > > > > Cheney has requested be released.
>
> > > > > Until such time, I can add nothing to the conversation.....I've said
> > my
> > > > > piece, both here in PF, as well as that Den of Moonbats, Euwetopia.
>
> > > > > On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 3:43 PM, VT VirtualTruth
> > > > > <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> > > > > > That was the best you could do?
>
> > > > > > Keith you want to try again?
>
> > > > > > On May 16, 1:38 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 12:53 PM, VT Sean Lewis
> > > > > > > <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > The shifting denial about torture.
>
> > > > > > > > May 16, 2009
> > > > > > > > Sean Lewis
>
> > > > > > > > Torture is just one more nail into the coffin
> > > > > > > > for the Republican Party.
>
> > > > > > > > Cheney is just trying to protect himself and
> > > > > > > > doing preemptive damage control. It is clear
> > > > > > > > the torture policy was his decision. Cheney
> > > > > > > > is hoping for another terror attack so he can
> > > > > > > > be vindicated the same way the entire GOP
> > > > > > > > party wants President Obama to fail so the
> > > > > > > > GOP policies can be vindicated.
>
> > > > > > > > The water down spin on torture is that water
> > > > > > > > boarding is not torture. Dunking someones
> > > > > > > > head is hardly torture, it is like getting baptised!
> > > > > > > > The rough questioning was needed to get results!
>
> > > > > > > > However a few things are being left out, 98
> > > > > > > > dead prisoners, the torture did not work, and
> > > > > > > > torture is against the both US and International
> > > > > > > > law.
>
> > > > > > > > If all the CIA was doing was 'questioning' prisoners
> > > > > > > > why was a doctor needed to be present?
>
> > > > > > > > I have been questioned by the police, no doctor was present.
>
> > > > > > > > In previous questioning by the FBI, no doctor was present,
> > > > > > > > so what changed?
>
> > > > > > > > What changed was there was now a chance that the prisoner
> > > > > > > > might die from the harsh interrogation. In fact 98 prisoners
> > > > > > > > who were being held for 'questioning died.
>
> > > >http://opendebateforum2.blogspot.com/2009/04/98-prisoners-died-in-us-.
> > > > > > ..
>
> > > > > > > > This article had 623 footnotes verifying the deaths.
>
> >http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/06221-etn-hrf-dic-rep-web.pdf
> > > > > > > > I posted one of those footnotes at the end of this article.
>
> > > > > > > > The Torture Apologists want you to believe that water boarding
> > > > > > > > is not dangerous, problem is water boarding wasn't the only
> > > > > > > > harsh treatment the prisoners received. A point the Torture
> > > > Apologist
> > > > > > > > conveniently do not bring up. Also if it wasn't torture
> > > > > > > > explain the 98 dead prisoners?
>
> > > > > > > > Next comes the issue of why the prisoners were being tortured
> > > > > > > > and what were the results of the torture.
>
> > > > > > > > We were told that the torture was to protect Americans from
> > future
> > > > > > > > attack, and that valuable information came as a result of the
> > > > torture.
> > > > > > > > This was after we were told that the US does not torture by the
> > > > way.
>
> > > > > > > > The truth is that the CIA was torturing prisoners. not to
> > protect
> > > > > > > > America or Americans, but to find a connection between Iraq and
> > > > > > > > 9/11 or a connection between Iraq and Al qaeda. This was to
> > > > > > > > give cover to the Bush Administration after no WMD's were found
> > > > > > > > in Iraq.
>
> > > > > > > > The torture how ever did not work, In fact it had the opposite
> > > > effect.
> > > > > > > > Prisoners who were cooperating and freely giving valuable Intel
> > > > about
> > > > > > > > Al qaeda without torture to the FBI, stopped cooperation when
> > the
> > > > > > > > CIA began torturing them about non existent connections between
> > > > > > > > Iraq and 9/11 or Iraq and Al Qaeda.
>
> > > >http://opendebateforum2.blogspot.com/2009/05/timeline-history-of-hars.
> > > > > > ..
>
> > > >http://opendebateforum2.blogspot.com/2009/05/report-links-cia-to-mili.
> > > > > > ..
>
> > > >http://opendebateforum2.blogspot.com/2009/05/harsh-interrogation-tech.
> > > > > > ..
>
> > > > > > > > The legality of torture is, there is none. The Bush
> > Administration
> > > > > > > > knew
> > > > > > > > this so in an effort to do a work around, the Bush
> > Administration
> > > > > > > > redefined the status of the prisoners to a classification the
> > Bush
> > > > > > > > Administration
> > > > > > > > deemed outside of the Geneva Convention.
>
> > > > > > > > Next came the justification of 'Harsh Interrogation' because of
> > the
> > > > > > > > 'ticking
> > > > > > > > time bomb' scenario. The White House ordered White House
> > attorneys
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > write briefs not only saying that harsh interrogation was not
> > > > torture,
> > > > > > > > but
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
