This is based on a chart that the CIA recently created from memory and meeting notes. That's not a particularly reliable source. To have any idea what happened, we need to see records created contemporaneously with the briefings.

THOSE BRIEFED BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF AND OR PROSECUTED FOR TREASON DURING A TIME OF WAR HAD THEY REVEALED WHAT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TOLD THEM, AND THEY ARE STILL SUBJECT TO PROSECUTION IF THEY REVEAL WHAT THEY WERE TOLD.

We shouldn't still be in a position where political spin of any persuasion is arguably relevant. We should be investigating and letting the chips fall where they may. Also, the opportunity to testify under oath will give those who are in the right the ability to factually/legitimately defend themselves against false, incomplete and or inaccurate accusations.

It is my understanding that whatever members of congress were briefed on, they were required to sign a non-disclosure agreement which mandated prosecution if they EVER revealed what they were told. Had they revealed "state secrets" during a "time of war", the Bush administration would have accused and or prosecuted them for treason!

Please, please, don't accept a word in any of the CIA memos without checking with Marcy Wheeler (aka Emptywheel) first.

She's been all over this story with three posts already since last night, raising lots of red flags. Already last night she pointed out that Jello Jay didn't attend the February 2003 meeting. That's been established for some time -- or at least there's been no CIA pushback on that point -- and it's something that any journalist covering this story should know.

I have no desire to carry water for the Dems, but let's attack them on what they actually did. Right now, we don't have an indication that Jello Jay had been briefed on the full panoply of techniques until 2004. And even then, the CIA's version of what the briefings were about seems to have some important holes in it.

Let's by all means keep calling for an independent public commission to get all this out on the table. But let's also not facilitate a disinformation campaign by the Torture Gang to cover their asses.

Something smells.

The closer we get to prosecution, or a Truth Commission, or whatever, the more leaks the intelligence community puts out. Meanwhile, the Dick is talking more now than he ever did in office.

Are the leaks coming from Cheney's 'stay-behinds'?

These were the installed loyalists and last-minute placements that Dick and Junior made on the way out.

Are we seeing the reason why they were left behind? If traced down, will we find out that many of them have no legitimate access to these docs, or this info, but were given it by the same VP Office that outed Plame, strong-armed the CIA and invented the need for torture?

Here's what I'd like to know:

Exactly WHO wrote these documents?
Who authorized the release of these documents?
Why were these documents released now?

Sounds to me like Cheney moles in the CIA.

That's more of a story than what's in the documents.

It was a tough spot to be in, lets remember. He had no power to do anything about this because he couldn't disclose this information to anyone.

If I recall, Rockefeller was also briefed about the wiretapping program and put a secret letter in the file indicating his objections, but he was unable to do anything further because it was top secret.

A recent PEW poll showed that since Obama's obvious attempts to circumvent prosecutions for War Crimes (torture), his favorability ratings for "change" and "trust" have fallen 25 percent from 80 percent to 55 percent. I warned the White House about what would happen in a letter a month ago, but got no reply. Voters are learning that Washington is changing Obama more than he is changing Washington. I predict that in the 2010 Congressionsal elections the Democrats will lose seven to ten seats in the House and three to five seats in the Senate because too many voters, due to Obama's willingness to compromise the law and Constitution just like the Bush administration, will see this president as just another politician who talks the talk but does not walk the walk. If I hold this view, being a staunch Obama supporter, then he is in trouble. The law is the law, Mr. President, and no one is above it, not even elected federal officials - - including yourself. Right now, I could make a strong case in a federal court that you have conspired to obstruct justice and should go to jail. Heaven help you, as your are going to need it.

Please read emptywheel for excellent coverage and analysis of all this. It will save you time and keep you from doing your own digging. Read not just the threads, (4 of them last night and this morning), but the comments which are still ongoing:

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/

Work your way backwards, forwards. Doesn't matter, as comments are coming all the time. (last 4 posts)

Re the Late Late Update and the Rockefeller email.

So we still don't know when Rockefeller was first briefed, though on the face of it, the asterisk suggests that we draw the inference it was sometime after, but not long after, Roberts was briefed in Feb 2003.

However, without directly contradicting the CIA chart summarizing the briefings, Rockefeller is in the email certainly suggesting that the CIA chart is exaggerating, if not misrepresenting, what Rockefeller was told in 2003.

The chart states for Roberts (and by implication the same for Rockefeller):

Briefing on EITs, including the fact that interrogations of ZUbaydah and Nashiri were taped.

EITs "described in considerable detail,"
including "how the water board was used." The process by which the techniques were approved by DoJ was also raised.

Senator Rockefeller was briefed but was not presented with the full picture nor was he told critical information that would have cast significant doubt on the program's legality and effectiveness.

Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said he thinks the attachment was deliberately ignored and perhaps suppressed. Excerpts from the document appeared in a report on the treatment of detainees released this month by Levin's committee. The report says the attachment echoes JPRA warnings issued in late 2001.

"It's part of a pattern of squelching dissent," said Levin, who added that there were other instances in which internal reviews of detainee treatment were halted or undercut. "They didn't want to hear the downside."
[snip]
"That information was not brought to the attention of the principals," said the official, who was involved in deliberations on interrogation policy and spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. "That would have been relevant. The CIA did not present with pros and cons, or points of concern. They said this was safe and effective, and there was no alternative."

So Rockefeller's email statement looks fairly plausible. If the Torture Advocates were sanitizing the info about what they were doing for their own principals, think how little they'd be likely to share with Congresscritters. Just enough to get their backsides covered? All we're left with at this stage is he-said-she-said and a lot of suspicions.

Which is why none of this is going to be sorted out without a full public investigation or commission as Pelosi has proposed. These dribbles of bits of information can only be evaluated when we see the whole picture.

Rep Hoekstra (R MI) thinks investigating "what Congress knew and when they knew it" is a good idea. Wouldn't that be interesting.

First, CIA officials would have to testify under oath, which would be quite interesting. Second, the GOP can hardly call for hearings on Pelosi without acknowledging that hearings on Bush et al are also justified. Finally, legislators have no culpability here. They were not involved in decision making, or even in an “advice and consent” capacity. They were just *briefed* and then forbidden from speaking out publicly or even discussing with their colleagues. Hoekstra is playing a very dangerous card here, and the Dems could simply say, OK, hearings all around. You asked for it.