« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
What's Behind CIA Decision To Release Torture Briefings Document?
On the issue of the torture briefings, is the main story starting to give way to the back story?
Here's what we mean:
The main story, reduced to its key elements, is that by the end of 2003, it seems clear that Nancy Pelosi and other top Dems had learned that we had water-boarded detainees. Whether Pelosi did enough in response to that information, or whether she was legitimately constrained by congressional protocol and by the atmosphere of fear that prevailed at the time is a matter for debate.
But the back story demands attention too. The fact that the CIA released the document on the briefings in response to a request last month from Rep. Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee, has received less focus than it should have.
Hoekstra's political motivation -- to suggest that Democrats, by virtue of having been briefed, were complicit in the Bush administration's torture program -- is clear, and has only been made clearer by his response to the document's release: "The bottom line is she and her key staff, they all knew about it," he told The Hill, referring to Pelosi in calling for hearings to determine what she and other lawmakers knew.
But Hoekstra may not have been the only one who was motivated by politics. As The Politico reported today, several top Senate Democrats have essentially accused the CIA of being all too ready to comply with Hoekstra's request, releasing the documents in order to deflect attention away from the agency's own unquestioned role in carrying out torture, just as the debate over possible prosecutions is heating up.
Sen. Russ Feingold perhaps went furthest, telling Politico it looks like "members of the committee or their staff were not in any way involved in [the release of the document]. It appears to come from the executive branch itself. ... I think it's unbelievable."
Sen. Carl Levin, who sat on the intel committee and was briefed on the program in 2006 and 2007, said: "I think there is so much embarrassment in some quarters [of the CIA] that people are going to try to shift some of the responsibility to others -- that's what I think."
Senate Number 2 Dick Durbin, for his part, said it's "interesting" that the documents were being released just at the time that "some of the groups that have been responsible for these interrogation techniques were taking the most criticism."
And Sen. Dianne Feinstein, asked, in Politico's words, "whether the CIA was seeking political cover by releasing the documents," replied: "Sure it is."
She went on to put the blame for the program squarely on the CIA:
Look, the CIA has the responsibility -- there's no question about that. Because you brief or notify doesn't mean there's any less responsibility of the CIA, any less the responsibility of the individual who participates in this.
So to be clear: Senior Democrats are claiming that the CIA deliberately released information in order to protect itself politically by shifting the blame onto Congress. That's a serious charge, and not one most lawmakers would make lightly. It's especially surprising coming from a relatively conservative Democrat like Feinstein, who by and large has enjoyed good relations with the agency.
It's also worth noting that CIA director Leon Panetta released a letter with the document, saying he couldn't vouch for the document's complete accuracy. That raises the question of why Panetta allowed it to be released at all, and suggests he was feeling pressure -- either internally or from Hoekstra and other congressional Republicans, or both.
All of this suggests there's likely a pretty interesting back-story behind the agency's decision -- and we can't help but be reminded of the recent leak about Jane Harman's wiretapped conversation with a suspected Israeli agent, which may have been similarly timed to discredit the only Democrat who formally protested the torture program upon learning of it.
We've called the offices of Senators Feingold, Levin, Durbin, and Feinstein to ask them to elaborate on the what they're claiming, and will keep you posted.
| TOPICS: CIA, Jane Harman, Nancy Pelosi, Russ Feingold, Torture
Josh
Zachary
NY Times has a fascinating Op Ed on what the "Gang of Four" -- all members of the Intelligence Committee -- could have done after the CIA told them about the new U.S. torture policy. One gets the feeling they did not bestir themselves out of fear for their political lives.
See, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/opinion/13divoll.html?scp=1&sq=congress%20torture%20bubble&st=cse
Sure, CIA has the wherewithal to embarass members of Congress. Look at their leaks about the Feinstein wiretap, and leak of memos regarding their "torture notifications."
Why aren't we surprised that no one on the Gang of Four did anything to stop the torture?
Leadership of that kind is in short supply.
May 13, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a load of crap. The real issue in the torture case is that Rumsfeld and Cheney initiated it after FBI interrogations of Abu Z. failed to turn up any links to Saddam, just to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Al Qaeda.
They may have told the intel committee, but do you really think they explained why they did this?
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html
"A former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the interrogation issue said that Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld demanded that the interrogators find evidence of al Qaida-Iraq collaboration."
Even the mcclatchy report pulls its punches:
"But for most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld, especially, were also demanding proof of the links between al Qaida and Iraq that (former Iraqi exile leader Ahmed) Chalabi and others had told them were there."
However, we also know that military action against Iraq was on the table at the very first Bush Admin meeting in Feb 2001, and that the Cheney energy task force was looking at maps of Iraqi oilfields as early as March. Likewise, the head of Qwest says the NSA approached him about a domestic wiretap program in the summer of 2001 - before 9/11.
A full investigation of the torture program and the domestic spying program - and of the anthrax attacks - must be carried out.
The conclusion will likely be that the Bush Administration engaged in a deliberate pattern of deception and lawbreaking, that was not really about fighting terrorism at all - it was about crushing the political opposition (U.S. attorneys?) and creating pretexts for seizing Iraqi oilfields. Even if it had been about Saddam, we could have been gone within a year - but it wasn't about Saddam, it was about securing Iraqi oil and placing more permanent military bases in the Middle East and Central Asia.
If they had cared about terrorism, would they have neglected Afghanistan the way they did?
May 14, 2009 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Correction: I intended to refer to CIA's disclosure that a wiretap picked up Jane Harman, not Feinstein; this to show how CIA plays hardball when there is a likelihood thier agents may be investigated and/or prosecuted.
May 13, 2009 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Plays hardball? The CIA is trying to intimidate the elected leaders of our country into covering up their crimes? These leaks are obstruction of justice if you ask me.
Scratch the surface and I think you will find Porter Goss and Dick Cheney behind all of this.
May 14, 2009 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bull. The CIA worked for Cheney and Rumsfeld, most likely - see the story on how the CIA interrupted FBI investigations:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/117/story/68121.html
"Ali Soufan, a veteran FBI investigator, said that CIA officials and others responsible for the extreme measures inflated the program's successes and downplayed the consequences of physical abuse..."
"Soufan was a lead FBI interrogator of Abu Zubaydah, one of the first major al Qaida figures to be captured after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The initial interrogation of Zubaydah, using the bureau's traditional, rapport-building techniques, yielded valuable intelligence, including the role of Khalid Sheik Mohammed as the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, he said...."
Then, they sent in the CIA:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/05/14/torture/
"Then, however, a CIA interrogation team from Washington led by a contractor arrived at the secret location. Zubaydah was stripped naked and the contractor began a series of coercive, abusive interrogations, based on Cold War-era communist techniques designed to elicit false confessions. During the Korean War, for example, Chinese interrogators employed the measures to get captured American pilots to make false confessions. "The new techniques did not produce results, as Abu Zubaydah shut down and stopped talking," Soufan explained."
This was all most likely part of an effort by Rumsfeld and Cheney to create links between Saddam and Al Qaeda - if they could get Zubaydah to say that, it would greatly bolster their effort to create a pretext for invading Iraq, rather than dealing with Afghanistan and the Taliban.
Cheney and Rumsfeld belong behind bars for starting an illegal war based on manufactured information, some of it partially obtained via torture. They are also formal inductees into the Pinochet Hall of Fame, aren't they? That also goes for their shady lieutenants, I think... there's no future in Washington for you - try a used car dealership.
May 14, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The main story, reduced to its key elements, is that by the end of 2003, it seems clear that Nancy Pelosi and other top Dems had learned that we had water-boarded.."
That is NOT THE MAIN STORY! The Main Story IS that the Bush/Cheney Admin tortured, lied and worse - and they deserve to be tried as War Criminals.
You have fallen for the GOP/Hoekstra "quick - Change the subject to blame Pelosi/Dems" meme.
I am disappointed when I see this type of writing in Newspapers - but to see this type of "reporting" on a blog like TPM - is much worse.
May 13, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the main story because TPM and other bloggers uncritically lap up the leaks/smears by the CIA/GOP torture faction.
Remember the Harman leak? DOJ dropped it in 2005, but mysteriously a leak occurs 4 years later. All bloggers do in response is ask "What did Harman do", not WTF? This is 4 years old, there were no charges, why now?
Instead of being appalled by deliberate BLACKMAIL by CIA, the approach is to delve into the details of the content of the blackmail.
May 14, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why is TPM so eager to incriminate Nancy Pelosi and all other Democrats and absolve Jane Harman as the sole Democratic hero is the main story in this story.
Jane Harman's letter did not "formally protest" the torture program. She protested the destruction of evidence, the torture tapes, which she was informed about and had to protest or be guilty of obstruction of justice, as the CIA intended. She also asked for the presidential finding on the program.
Have you read Jane Harman's letter to the CIA or are you just taking dictation from Lanny Davis? Read the letter for yourself from TPM's own site and in which the letter was appropriately characterized, before TPM became the stenographer for the deification of Harman.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/005016.php
May 13, 2009 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reread the letter. Harman raises questions about the EITs (the subject of the briefing) in her letter. She says "you claim they're legal" and in the next paragraph says she wants details about how the legal opinion was reached because the EITs raise "profound policy problems". She's "concerned" about the process by which these practices were approved, including whether they'd received formal presidential approval.
In government-speak, those are fighting words. She's effectively calling them out on what they're doing, saying they're going to have to do a much better job of justifying what they're up to.
May 13, 2009 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
For a wrap-up post, this is seriously incomplete.
You need point out that not only did Panetta warn in his cover leter that the briefing schedule might not be accurate, but the specific matters which the Dems dispute. Three of the four Dems shown on the schedule as being briefed in 2002-2003 have openly disputed the contents of the schedule since it was released.
Pelosi says she wasn't briefed on what had been done to AZ or waterboarding, just that some EITs had been determined to be legal. Graham says he wasn't briefed on EITs at all. Rockefeller says he wasn't given the same briefing Roberts was given (the famous asterisk) and wasn't briefed at all until late 2003 or told much of anything until after the IG's report had been completed.
You really need to lead with the fact that on the key questions of "what did they know and when", the Dems have pointed to specific errors they claim are in the schedule.
Then go to Hoekstra's handwaving. And then go to the other Dems suggesting that the schedule is a set-up that shouldn't be held to be gospel.
May 13, 2009 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Appears to me Panetta was sending a signal about the CIA document -- suggesting that it might not be "accurate" points to questions about what the CIA is up to with that document. Essentially says the document, and or release of it, is questionable, and cannot be trusted at face value.
May 14, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
What has been missing from any of the controversies about "classified" documents and information is: "Who initially classifies these documents and information and who has the authority to de-classify them?"
What is to prevent Congress from passing a law de-classifying anything they want de-classified? Or, worse yet, passing a law stating that any member of Congress has all security clearances?
Congress wanting a document from the CIA and being told it is classified above their level of clearance is ludicrous. Congress cannot function as representatives of the people while being kept in the dark.
It would make sense for Congress to pass a law setting up a committee to review the classification of any document and to change that classification.
May 14, 2009 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for finally getting around to this, which some of us have been complaining about for several days. The CIA/GOP pro-torture/CYA faction is seeking to muddy the waters, shift the blame, and make ti so that "everyone is somehow vaguely guilty" so that they don't get the blame.
A few selective leaks -- Harman one week, Pelosi the next -- with such impecable timing. Meanwhile, Cheney keeps pushing the debate to one
of effectiveness.
The whole scenario is ludicrous: Bush and Cheney authorize torture, the rubberstamp GOP-led congress gives him full reign, and yet it is somehow the minority parties fault -- better yet, a couple of antiwar lefty dems -- because they were briefed (not asked their opinions or had any say). It's clear that the Cheney wants to make everyone complicit to cover their crimes. I assume these leaks are warning shots -- press for a full ivnestigation and we will tarnish you.
This is a full court press by the pro-torture crowd, and it is politically motivated.
May 14, 2009 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Methinks we're finding out what the illegal domestic spying was about: getting dirt on opposing party members.
And as noted, that began long before 9/11.
May 14, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
And think about this: The Harman leak/smear was a warning against all other reps: The NSA might have some dirt on you too. So everyone shut up about torture, or we will leak/smear you as well.
THIS IS BLACKMAIL
May 14, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Finally, someone covers this. It's amazing to think that the agency would release this document, littered with errors and inaccuracies.
And, it's sort of ridiculous to think that it matters whether Nancy and Harry knew about waterboarding or not. It's not relevant to the question of who ordered the torture, who conducted the torture and how soon can we have those folks tried.
May 14, 2009 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm amazed it took TPM a few weeks to consider this. They were lapping up the leaks about Harman, and then Pelosi, at face value.
This really gives me the creeps. The CIA is supposed to gather intelligence on foreign countries, not try to blackmail American politicans.
Really sick stuff.
May 14, 2009 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
The CIA exists to break the law, in America's favor.
At its best, its officers encourage citizens of foreign countries to commit treason against their governments. At worst, well...this.
I am sympathetic to the low rungs who were ordered to do this, and shown all manner of evidence that the elected officials at the White House and in Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, had approved of it - and lawyers had concluded that this was just an expansion of lawful interrogation. Prosecuting them doesn't do anything except to tell those left behind at CIA: "Do as little as possible without being fired. If it even begins to feel like something with a political dimension, then send one, two, twenty reports back to the home office awaiting clarification. It pays the same."
I don't care if there's legal culpability for any congressional Democrats, and neither will anyone else. There's moral culpability, and if our Majority Leader can't say she saw something immediately wrong with the policy, then there's not much political advantage to be had.
And at the end of it, that's what this is about, notwithstanding the shrieks from the Internet about the rule of law.
May 14, 2009 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is what I sent TPMTips yesterday in reponse to Josh's posts suggesting Cheney may have jumped the shark. It pertains to this post:
I think it is a big error to assume that Cheney is on the PR blitz because he is insane or stupidly reckless.
Right now Cheney and those who decided torture by contractor was a good idea are being raked over the coals by slow and deliberate declassification of documents they no longer control. They are facing the continuous PR nightmare of multiple public hearings arranged and run by Democrats who are as invested in political advantage as they are in debating the details of torture.
If the "crazy" high profile PR blitz to suppress torture investigations fails, what else can be done to remove the advantage from the Democrats who are certainly defining the Cheney tenure as evil?
One way to escape this attack is to try to force the investigations outside of congress, and to try to halt the declassification of damaging memos.
Consider the simultaneous efforts that have been linked to Cheney and Porter Goss to sully or implicate Harman and Pelosi, and as many Congressional Dems as they could list in the CIA memo for Hoekstra.
Quite simply, an inquiry by an independent prosecutor or commission may be better for Cheney and company than letting congress drive the investigations.
Once an independent prosecutor or commission is initiated, it is likely that Obama could not get away with selectively declassifying CIA memos.
Furthermore, congressional hearings would likely be less probing out of deference to the inquiry, in order to avoid jeopardizing potential prosecutions
It might also take things out of the spotlight, and place them behind closed doors, as happened for several years with the Plame hearings.
Cheney understands grand juries, where good soldiers like Ollie North and Scooter Libby can take one for the team.
Maybe I am overestimating Cheney and the desire of Democrats to use the torture issue to continue to pound the GOP, but I don't think his actions are without reason.
May 14, 2009 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
The question is, did she know that they were using torture in an effort to create a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam?
May 14, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
You aren't serious! Their efforts to "find"/manufacture links between Hussein and "al Qaeda" were wholly in-house -- and intended for the consumption/duping of Congress and We the people.
May 14, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are they doing this through the media?
Come on gang, catch up. fast!
Remember: once it breaks it's up to the accused to prove different.
So.......... what hand/body/party/accused is forced to respond(one way or the other)?
Come on. Who owns the media?
btw: if they start calling everyone else by a different name, what will they name the "liberal, elite" media?
Will it become the social club media? Or the social special people? The social-elites?
Will they be the socialist media?
Will fraud be included or will they be considered gang members?
Try not to stay distracted.
You're still being looted while you discuss torture like this is normal.
And dickman is still head noise-maker?
Come on. Better check it out closer.
May 14, 2009 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Remember: once it breaks it's up to the accused to prove different."
False. It is up to the party making the allegation to prove the allegation.
May 14, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
It should be obvious that Cheney and Rumsfeld and their hangers on in the neoconservative movement are simply trying to protect their legacy and position themselves for another run at power. That's why Cheney is on all the airwaves.
Remember, this guy is a crook and a war profiteer - he held onto ownership of Halliburton/KBR stock after the fraudulent 2000 election, and then steered $7 billion to them as part of Iraq deals.
Likewise, Rumsfeld whipped up a big panic over Asian bird flu, leading to a $7 billion Tamiflu program. Rumsfeld was CEO of Gilead in 2000; Gilead owns the Tamiflu patent, and Rumsfeld pocketed over $20 million off the deal, as (like Cheney) he held onto his shares.
Their legacy is one of torture, blatant corruption, and gross failure to protect the United States from terrorist attacks. They may have even played a role in the anthrax attacks, certainly in the coverup and in the effort to link the anthrax attacks to Saddam (as well as 9/11).
Due to their obsession with Iraqi oil, they refused to go after OBL seriously in Afghanistan in 2002 - see the 60 minutes special on Dalton Fury. Could they have gone into Iraq in 2003 if they had captured OBL in 2002? Unlikely.
May 14, 2009 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Every resource I have ever come across describes the CIA as a dangerous place for those not well drilled into the art of plausible deniability and lying. Not sure if this is an entirely accurate portrayal because I have had no firsthand or second-hand experience with the agency.
Does anyone think that Panetta simply released these docs because of internal pressure but by having a cover letter which stated that the accuracy of the document was in question, he then intends to find out who is who within the agency. It seemed to me that when he was picked there was some rumbling in the conservative/aggressive foreign policy side that Panetta was not a good pick because he is not a military intelligence officer. So if there happens to be factions within the CIA (and having factions is not necessarily a bad thing if you believe that healthy discourse delivers good policy) then would it not be smart on his part to find out who your factions happen to be?
May 14, 2009 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, then, what did Rep. Hoekstra know and when did he know it? Is he suggesting that Democrats were briefed and Republicans were not? Is he acknowledging that he too did something untoward, that two wrongs make a right? Seems to me we need to know the specifics of his briefing before we set off down this path.
May 14, 2009 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP/CIA blackmail ammounts to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
But it is a fallacy and false: Whether Cheney et al deliberately did a CYA briefing to spread the blame or not, the torturers were Bush/Cheney and the CIA.
In some ways,lefty bloggers got rolled by the CIA, in the old "both sides" trick: In an effort to appear to be fair and balanced, liberal media often gets drawn into ostentatius denunciations of liberal pols for much more minor failings.
Dick "I tortured and would do it again" Cheney is the fucking problem here. Not Pelosi, not Harman, or whoever else they want to smear.
May 14, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink