« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Pelosi Points To Panetta Letter Warning Descriptions Of Briefings May Be Inaccurate
Greg Sargent has noted that the cover letter sent by CIA director Leon Panetta to accompany the release of the documents on torture briefings, in which Panetta cautions that the descriptions of the briefings may be inaccurate.
And now Nancy Pelosi is pointing out the same thing.
In a blog post on the Speaker's site, she reiterates that the September 2002 briefing was the only one she received on enhanced interrogation techniques, then writes:
As reported in the press, a cover letter from CIA Director Panetta accompanying the briefings memo released this week concedes that the descriptions provided by the CIA may not be accurate.
Advertisement
Josh
Zachary
None of which has anything to do with indicting those who authorized and carried out illegal acts of torture.
We KNEW some Dems were informed. It's an old story that has nothing to do with the illegality of "enhanced interrogation".
May 8, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree. So what if a few legislators were informed ? They were fed fake information for years.
What did they believe ? Did they really believe all the nonsense thrust at them ? It was clear the administration was making up fake stuff by the ton after they resurrected the 'aluminum tubes' fairy tale.
Or were they thrilled to be one of the few legislators being briefed ? Were they happy to be lied at as long as their status was raised by being briefed ? This possibility is awful.
The WORST fact so far : the White House used the Office of Legal Counsel to legalize, after the fact, illegal torture.
Our Republic is in terrible trouble ...
May 8, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Humm..looks like the CIA is trying to avoid accountability on any level...our very own U.S. Department of Domestic/Foreign Terrorism...Kennedy threw the CIA "out of the country" (Bay of Pigs, F.U.)..and he was assassinated...so was RFK..odd, huh? (check out G.H. Bush and his CIA connection)
May 8, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also think it is important to note that there was an article released shortly after Obama took office in which the chief authority looking into these matters (a Female appointee of Bush, military judge of some sort) said that when the techniques were applied together that is essentially what made it in her viewpoint torture. I believe this is important because even if Congress was briefed, what is the likely hood that they were told about each technique, which in and of itself may or may not be torture, but not that they would be used on concurrently?
One of the authors cited in the sleep deprivation study has said as much about his academic work by admitting that any other stress applied to the situation would thus make his study null and void.
Also I think many of the other commentators on this story have chimed in to state that much of this surrounding Nancy Pelosi seems like old news, and possible partisan behind the scenes shenanigans to boot. Maybe this is all Cheney and his moles in the DOD trying to poison the well for their own protection. If any government officials were briefed on techniques that are now deemed to be unconstitutional then they should be recognized for the failed oversight as well.
May 8, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Were I in her shoes, I'd take this opportunity to publicly call for Holder to appoint a Special Prosecutor. To say in addition that she welcomes the opportunity to clear her name. And that she believes it will be proven that those who designed, implemented, and authorized torture are now attempting to smear and scapegoat others in an attempt to avoid prosecution themselves.
I think she could turn this into a clarion call for a wide-ranging investigation and the prosecution of those who were responsible for war crimes. And call the bluff of those accusing her.
May 8, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Besides, even if they "told" her, did that erase the criminality of what they were engaged in?
May 8, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
My thoughts exactly. I'd hate to see our first woman Speaker go down, but if she has to ... I'll add that the woman who was the head of the Intelligence Committe a the time, Jane Harman, DID object. And now she's the target of a "leak" about talking with AIPAC. Anyone else smell a smear?
As for the ReThugs, they are just like naughtly little boys. "But I TOLD her I was going to do it!" Like THAT justifies breaking the law.
May 10, 2009 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish.
If only it were that simple.
In re your self-reply, Pelosi was not in the chain of command (Congress makes laws, it doesn't execute them except internally). This is not to say she could not have raised questions or even objections to those which appropriate clearance. It's my impression that the 2002 briefing was classified, that she could not discuss it with her own staff except maybe a staffer present at the briefing. But she could have objected to the CIA, to the White House, or elsewhere. OTOH, if she were told that the techniques shared with her were all legal and had been vetted for legality, there is no reason to blame her as a bystander for not digging deeper, even if she could have done some of her own research. She's not on the hook like Bybee and the Principals Committee are.
The problem is, she was not being asked for permission. It sounds like a courtesy briefing, possibly done as a political cover move to implicate her, but possibly done at her request or even 'pro forma'.
It sounds as if the briefing was superficial, and probably amounted to sharing some fraction of a Bybee or Yoo memo(s) with her out of context.
May 8, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you. She never wrote a permission letter. Nor did she ask for one.
But she should call for a Special Prosecutor, as a way of having these smears put to rest, in the context of an investigation of everything.
May 8, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish.
If only it were that simple.
May 8, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're always a doom sayer. I'm tired of the argument that things are way more complex - as if that's an excuse!
Ok. Say what you want. I'm not responding any further here.
May 8, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not doom, reality. I have optimistic and pessimistic sides. On the economy I remain mostly a pessimist. On politics I aim to be a realist and to support leadership but skeptically.
I just don't see this as enough to push Pelosi over the reality hurdles. That's not "doomsaying". And I didn't care to argue the details of those hurdles, I simply supported your call in qualified form.
May 8, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course it was done to implicate her. The Bush admin was quite adept at getting dems to go along especially during the first 4 years.
I agree that even if she did know (and I believe she did not) she is not guilty of a crime to which our esteemed former Vice President admitted to either yesterday or today.
May 8, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like a blog title: "Pelosi should call for a Special Prosecutor."
And she should. Like you say, the best way to erase doubt, is to enact some independent investigation. And this investigation has be given authority to range around freely--possibly here's where the complexity eds speaks about lies.
May 8, 2009 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one had the guts - or the power - to stop the torture once it began. Only when it leaked to the media and Bush's popularity tanked after Katrina did anyone raise this issue. That's why Obama won - he had the courage to question Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld.
May 8, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Hopefully Eric Holder will borrow some of those "guts" Obama had to ensure that US is and always will be a national of laws.
May 8, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I finally found that article that said that the US tortured by the top US military Susan Crawford.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/top_military_official_we_tortured.php
May 8, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case"
That is her opinion.
In fact if you read her justification, she says the techniques were authorized in the sense of the techniques not being torturous themselves. She says the abuses of the techniques bothered her.
I think she overstated.
Also, that KSM was treated poorly, whether tortured or not, is not sufficient grounds to not bring a prosecution against him if there is sufficient other evidence against him. And just holding him is not appropriate either as an alternative.
Her word is not law. It's quite questionable.
May 8, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
So the CIA is unable to verify whether the details the CIA provided of a meeting between the CIA and US Government officials are accurate?
Nice intelligence agency you got there.
May 8, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, if you've already forged a letter from the Interior Minister of Niger (albeit poorly) and internal memo is a SNAP.
May 10, 2009 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
This must be what Kristol was talking about. Show how complicit key Democrats were, then the Bushies escape the hook.
May 8, 2009 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who cares...
What else would she say. "Oh my, of course I knew they were gonna give them Torquemada facials, but I thought it was something else though."
Going after capitol hill has no traction. If they were told the "harsh interrogation techniques" were legal and they had to sign a non-disclosure agreement, then the only thing they would have to fear is compromising their own morality. As we all know politicians have no morals. This is an empty witch-hunt. They will use the same argument Bush/Cheney will use. The difference is that the executive branch initiated and formalized the order, while congress merely acquiesced under a legal umbrella.
The $$$ is on going after the lawyers - lawyers - lawyers [insert echo here]....
May 8, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it definitely appears our hopes are dependent on whether Holder has gonads. It becomes more and more obvious there has to be an independent prosecuter (preferably not one with CIA connections).
May 8, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed entirely, an independent investigator is the way to go.
May 8, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gosh, was I at a torture presentation ? I go to these presentations but usually my mind is on something else like fund-raising. Can't say I remember a thing.
--from Nancy's lament
May 8, 2009 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please see extensive discussion on this over at emptywheel, which pretty much put this issue to rest - via debunking the accuracy of these supposedly accurate accounts by the CIA. There are at least 4 posts from last night through this morning, where this has been extensively discussed, analyzed, and docomented:
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/
May 8, 2009 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Harman gets made into a saint for basically being 'outed' as an Israeli asset -- and Pelosi gets barbequed for doing what? -- Realistically what could she have done? Written a letter -- wow! that would have helped -- would it have stopped the crimes that Bush et al were doing? Do you think, what we know now [fr. Seymour Hersh] that Pelosi might have had a visit from one of Cheney's thug squads if she tried to rock the boat?
Also, who would benefit if Pelosi was made a scapegoat? -- Hoyer maybe, and do we really want him in charge during a AIPAC driven build-up for military action against Iran?
Give me Pelosi any day. I don't want her to resign.
May 8, 2009 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink