
Over at TPMDC, we posted video of a speech given Wednesday night by Sen. Carl Levin, in which he pushed back against Dick Cheney's no-middle-ground approach to torture.
But one specific rebuttal of Levin's that particularly stood out, in part because not enough people have challenged Cheney's claim, comes at the 3:53 mark.
Says Levin:
When former Vice President Cheney said last week that what happened at Abu Ghraib was the work of a quote few sadistic prison guards acting on their own, he bore false witness.And when he said last week there was no link between the techniques at Abu Ghraib and those approved for use in the CIA's secret prisons, he again strayed from the truth.
The seeds of Abu Ghraib's rotten fruit were sown by civilians at the highest levels of our government.
Hard to put it better than that.
Watch:
We've told you in recent months about the Obama administration's disappointing tendency to mimic some of its predecessor's more troubling war-on-terror tactics. But is the administration's approach to public relations another area to add to the list?
Yesterday's aggressive push-back against the Daily Telegraph report on torture photos suggests it could be.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (5)Do the Abu Ghraib torture photos that President Obama wants to keep secret show even worse crimes that we've yet known about?
Major General Antonio Taguba, the former army officer who, in a 2004 probe, documented widespread detainee abuse at the prison, has told The Daily Telegraph: "These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (13)Amazing as it seems, there was a time not so long ago, when people were talking about a very different potential first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice: Alberto Gonzales. That never came to pass, of course. But it hasn't stopped Gonzo from using the Sotomayor nomination to get himself back in the media spotlight, making the rounds on cable news to discuss the historic moment.
Still, we can't help but feel there's a longer-term agenda behind the ex-AG's recent media tour. Call it the self-rehabilitation of Alberto Gonzales.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (8)Yet more evidence that the CIA may not have been totally up front with Nancy Pelosi during that contested torture briefing from 2002...
A former "deep-cover" CIA operative tells CQ's Jeff Stein that agency briefers often hide facts or shade the truth. "They mumble, they dissemble, and there's a lot of 'on the one hand... '" said the operative, who has written harsh critiques of the CIA, under the pen-name Ishmael Jones.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (14)TPMmuckraker favorite Alberto Gonzales went on CNN this afternoon to talk Sotomayor.
But Wolf Blitzer also asked him about the ongoing torture debate. And it was interesting to see that Gonzo -- who was White House counsel at the time the torture policies were first formulated -- seemed eager to shift any blame onto the Justice Department he would later go on to lead.
Pressed by Blitzer about his role in approving torture, he first clarified that he wasn't at the Justice Department at the key time, and said "It's the responsibility of the Department of Justice to provide legal guidance on behalf of the executive branch."
In other words: blame Ashcroft, Yoo, and Bybee.
Of course, it's unclear how that stance lines up with a report that Gonzo, while at the White House, personally signed off on CIA requests to conduct torture.
Gonzo also assured Blitzer: "I stand by my record," and "I did my best to defend our country."
Watch:
This came out a few weeks ago, but it's worth taking note of: We've told you about the Obama administration's frequent invocations of the state secrets claim in domestic national security cases -- mimicking the Bush administration. But it now appears the administration is going further by leaning on our allies to adopt a similar approach.
Binyam Mohamed, who was released from Guantanamo in February, claims he was tortured into confessing to bombing plots, and that the British government is complicit in the torture, for feeding questions to the CIA.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (7)Conservative radio host Eric "Mancow" Muller decided to have himself waterboarded to show it's no big deal.
His response after enduring several seconds of having water poured on his face?
"It is way worse than I thought it would be, and that's no joke." He added: "Had I known that it was that bad I wouldn't have done this ... I don't want to say this: absolutely torture."
Watch:
And remember: this was in a controlled setting where the victim knew he wasn't going to be harmed.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (66)You've got to hand it to Karen Hughes. She fights for what she believes in.
The former top Bush adviser talked torture in a recent interview with the Houston Chronicle:
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (9)For a while now, it's been clear that, as former FBI interrogator Ali Soufan testified earlier this month, Abu Zubaydah was tortured well before the Justice Department issued its first opinion approving enhanced interrogation techniques in August 2002.
So we've been wondering about the procedure by which that treatment was authorized. And it looks like a crucial new report from NPR may have offered an answer.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (27)That GOP effort to get a congressional investigation into Nancy Pelosi's claim that the CIA lied to her about torture? Looks like it didn't get too far.
The Associated Press reports that the House voted by 252-172 to block the measure, which was sponsored by Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah. Two GOPers, Ron Paul of Texas and Walter Jones of North Carolina, joined Democrats in voting against it.
It looks like we've figured out what Dick Cheney meant when he said President Obama has "reserved unto himself" the right to order enhanced interrogation techniques.
In February the Wall Street Journal reported (sub. req.) :
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (9)We asked earlier about what Dick Cheney might have been referring to when he said President Obama had reserved the right to order enhanced interrogation when he deems it appropriate.
Could Cheney have been referring to this passage from Obama's executive order on interrogations?
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)We were struck by one excerpt from Cheney's speech:
This might explain why President Obama has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation should he deem it appropriate. What value remains to that authority is debatable, given that the enemy now knows exactly what interrogation methods to train against, and which ones not to worry about. Yet having reserved for himself the authority to order enhanced interrogation after an emergency, you would think that President Obama would be less disdainful of what his predecessor authorized after 9/11. It's almost gone unnoticed that the president has retained the power to order the same methods in the same circumstances. When they talk about interrogations, he and his administration speak as if they have resolved some great moral dilemma in how to extract critical information from terrorists. Instead they have put the decision off, while assigning a presumption of moral superiority to any decision they make in the future.PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (9)
Here's maybe the most radical argument of an extremely radical speech:
And when they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don't stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for - our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity.
Here are some of the key excerpts from the part of Cheney's speech where he addresses torture. There are some obvious problems with all of them.
Over on the left wing of the president's party, there appears to be little curiosity in finding out what was learned from the terrorists. The kind of answers they're after would be heard before a so-called "Truth Commission."PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (43)
Another day, another indication that the CIA briefings document that Republicans are currently trying to bludgeon Nancy Pelosi with is deeply flawed and unreliable.
The Associated Press yesterday spotted *(see late update below) two clear new errors in the document -- including one real howler we're kicking ourselves for not spotting ourselves:
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Support for Nancy Pelosi -- and for our point that questioning the CIA's honesty isn't really too radical a position -- has come from a perhaps unlikely new source.
The Hill reports that Arlen Specter, the new Democrat who as a Republican chaired the Senate intelligence committee, told a luncheon audience at the American Law Institute: "The CIA has a very bad record when it comes to -- I was about to say candid, that's too mild -- to honesty."
We really shouldn't have to do this. As we've said before, the idea that it's some kind of outlandish and unconscionable slur to point out that the CIA -- the CIA, for chrissakes! -- can sometimes be economical with the truth is absurd on its face. But the Republican attacks on Nancy Pelosi for daring to make that claim just keep coming, so it looks like we're going to have to point this out:
Shocking as it sounds, the GOP hasn't always been so sensitive about harsh criticism of the CIA -- including leveling the charge that the CIA is being deliberately deceptive -- when it's served the party's political interest.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (10)We told you earlier this afternoon about how Rep. Pete Hoekstra, who has called Nancy Pelosi's claim that the CIA lied to her "outrageous," has himself initiated a probe into whether the agency misled lawmakers about a 2001 shooting incident in Peru that caused the death of an American citizen.
And it looks like Hoekstra's hypocrisy goes even further. Think Progress points out that Hoekstra last night went on Fox News, where he explained to Greta Van Susteren that it's fine to criticize the CIA's performance, but not to accuse it of lying:
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (6)The CIA has given another indication that the briefing document with which Republicans are trying to attack Nancy Pelosi is unreliable.
Yesterday, Rep. David Obey sent a letter to CIA director Leon Panetta pointing out yet another apparent error in the document. The Washington Independent's Spencer Ackerman asked CIA for a response to Obey's claim, and got the following statement:
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (11)As they go after Nancy Pelosi over those CIA briefings, Republicans have been putting the burden of proof on the Speaker, suggesting that it's all but unheard of for the CIA to mislead others in government. But in fact, the agency is currently being probed for doing exactly that on a different issue -- and the effort was initiated by one of Pelosi's fiercest critics on the torture briefings kerfuffle.
Last night, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, who chairs the oversight subcommittee of the House intelligence committee, told MSNBC's Ed Schultz (h/t Democratic Underground):
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (35)Here's yet another reason (as if more were needed) to doubt that that CIA briefings document perfectly reflects what lawmakers were told about torture back in the early days of the war on terror.
Almost every briefing described in the document -- including the September 2002 Pelosi briefing that's directly at issue -- refers to "EITs," or enhanced interrogation techniques, as a subject that was discussed. But according to a former intelligence professional who has participated in such briefings, that term wasn't used until at least 2006* (see correction below).
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (27)Here's yet more evidence -- as if it were needed -- that that CIA briefing document that Republicans are trying to hang around Nancy Pelosi's neck is hardly a reliable source of information.
Rep. David Obey, who chairs the appropriations committee, just sent the following letter to CIA director Leon Panetta:
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (17)More possible evidence that the Bush administration used torture to get information about Iraq?
Back in 2004, the Associated Press reported on the plight of several Guantanamo detainees who had previously been held by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Among them was one Iraqi:
The Iraqi, Arkan Mohammed Ghafil al Karim, says he deserted from Saddam Hussein's army and was later imprisoned and tortured by the Taliban for two years. He says he was brought to Guantanamo in 2002 so that the American military could learn about Iraq's army ahead of the invasion of that country.
On Friday, McClatchy provided a big new addition -- which hasn't got the attention it deserves -- to the growing pile of evidence suggesting the Bush administration used torture to build a political case for the Iraq war.
The news service dug up comments made in 2004 by Dick Cheney to the-now defunct Rocky Mountain News. Said the then-veep:
The (al Qaida-Iraq) links go back. We know for example from interrogating detainees in Guantanamo that al Qaida sent individuals to Baghdad to be trained in C.W. and B.W. technology, chemical and biological weapons technology. These are all matters that are there for anybody who wants to look at it."PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (36)
In an appearance on ABC's This Week today, Liz Cheney employed a classic non-denial denial when asked about a report her father's office pressured interrogators to use torture to find evidence of Iraq-Qaeda links.
George Stephanopolous asked Liz Cheney about a Daily Beast piece reporting that the vice president's office in 2003 suggested interrogators waterboard an Iraqi detainee who was suspected of having knowledge of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Asked specifically by Stephanopolous if she would deny "that the vice president's office did ask specifically to have information about Iraq-al Qaeda connections presented to this detainee," Cheney offered this muddled response:
I think that it's important for us to have all the facts out. And and, the first and most important fact is that the vice president has been absolutely clear that he supported this program, this was an important program, it saved American lives. Now, the way this policy worked internally was once the policy was determined and decided, the CIA, you know, made the judgments about how each individual detainee would be treated. And the Vice President would not substitute his own judgment for the professional judgment of the CIA.
Here's the video of the exchange, (h/t ThinkProgress):
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (29)Here's a statement just put out by Nancy Pelosi, which seems designed to turn down the heat on her claim that the CIA lied to her about torture, but doesn't back off the claim:
Pelosi Statement on Panetta Message to CIA EmployeesPERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (9)We all share great respect for the dedicated men and women of the intelligence community who are deeply committed to the safety and security of the American people. My criticism of the manner in which the Bush Administration did not appropriately inform Congress is separate from my respect for those in the intelligence community who work to keep our country safe. What is important now is to be united in our commitment to ensuring the security of our country; that, and how Congress exercises its oversight responsibilities, will continue to be my focus as we move forward.
Here's another possible piece of evidence that the Bush torture program was used to bolster the political case for the Iraq war.
That 2004 intelligence committee report on Iraq intel that we just wrote about also contains a short section, on page 324, on the information provided by Abu Zubaydah:
The CIA provided four reports detailing the debriefings of Abu Zubaydah, a captured senior coordinator for Al Qaida responsible for training and recruiting. Abu Zubaydah said he was not aware of a relationship between Iraq and al Qaida. He also said, however, that any relationship would be highly compartmented and went on to name al Qaida members who he thought had good contacts with Iraqis. For instance, Abu Zubaydah indicated that he had heard that an important al Qaeda associate, Abu Mus'ab al -Zarqawi, and others had good relationships with Iraqi intelligence ... REDACTED ... During the debrefings, Abu Zubaydah offered his opinion that it would be extremely unlikely for Bin Laden to have agreed to ally with Iraq, due to his desire to keep organization on track with its mission and maintain its operational independence.PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (4)
A great find by the Huffington Post offers additional evidence that the Bushies used torture to try to Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda :
A line buried on page 353 of the July 2004 Select Committee on Intelligence report on pre-Iraq war intelligence reads:
CTC [Counter Terrorist Center] noted that the questions regarding al-Qaida's ties to the Iraqi regime were among the first presented to senior al-Qaida operational planner Khalid Shaikh Muhammad following his capture.
"Among the first presented".
Yesterday we rounded up the other evidence that torture was used to bolster the political case for war with Iraq.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (5)CIA director Leon Panetta has just sent the following message to staffers in response to Nancy Pelosi's claim that the agency misled her over torture:
Message from the Director: Turning Down the VolumePERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (24)There is a long tradition in Washington of making political hay out of our business. It predates my service with this great institution, and it will be around long after I'm gone. But the political debates about interrogation reached a new decibel level yesterday when the CIA was accused of misleading Congress.
Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values. As the Agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing "the enhanced techniques that had been employed." Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened.
My advice--indeed, my direction--to you is straightforward: ignore the noise and stay focused on your mission. We have too much work to do to be distracted from our job of protecting this country.
We are an Agency of high integrity, professionalism, and dedication. Our task is to tell it like it is--even if that's not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it. (our itals)
There's another part of Lawrence Wilkerson's widely circulated blog post from yesterday that hasn't been given the attention it deserves.
Wilkerson, the former US Army colonel who was Colin Powell's chief of staff at the State Department, wrote:
My investigations have revealed to me--vividly and clearly--that once the Abu Ghraib photographs were made public in the Spring of 2004, the CIA, its contractors, and everyone else involved in administering "the Cheney methods of interrogation", simply shut down. Nada. Nothing. No torture or harsh techniques were employed by any U.S. interrogator. Period. People were too frightened by what might happen to them if they continued.PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (24)What I am saying is that no torture or harsh interrogation techniques were employed by any U.S. interrogator for the entire second term of Cheney-Bush, 2005-2009. So, if we are to believe the protestations of Dick Cheney, that Obama's having shut down the "Cheney interrogation methods" will endanger the nation, what are we to say to Dick Cheney for having endangered the nation for the last four years of his vice presidency?
Nancy Pelosi's claim that the CIA mislead her in torture briefings has received support from a new source: Larry Wilkerson, the retired US Army colonel who served as chief of staff to Colin Powell.
Wilkerson told TPMmuckraker that he's been present for similar CIA briefings, and that the agency briefs only "very limitedly," and "very selectively."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)At last, the torture debate looks to be heading toward what's been the big question lurking in the background all along: was the Bush administration using torture in large part to make a political case for the invasion of Iraq?
Writing on The Daily Beast, former NBC producer Robert Windrem reports that in April 2003, Dick Cheney's office suggested that interrogators waterboard an Iraqi detainee who was suspected of having knowledge of a link between Saddam and al Qaeda.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (26)Here's the full video of that remarkable 19 and a half minute appearance by Nancy Pelosi this morning, in which she reads a statement and then takes questions -- and accuses the CIA of lying to Congress about torture.
Watch:
Dick Cheney's request to have declassified two CIA documents that he says will prove torture is effective has been denied.
In a letter obtained by both Steven Hayes of The Weekly Standard and Greg Sargent of the Plumline, the CIA wrote to the National Archives that saying that the documents are the subject of the a Freedom of Information Act request, and therefore can't be released.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (2)House Republican Leader John Boehner says it's "hard for me imagine" that the CIA would ever mislead Congress, as Nancy Pelosi has claimed.
Watch:
Yes, we too would be shocked to learn that our nation's spy agency is ever less than entirely forthcoming.
Here's a very interesting line from the statement Nancy Pelosi just gave:
We also now know that techniques, including waterboarding, had already been employed, and that those briefing me in September 2002 gave me inaccurate and incomplete information.PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (5)At the same time, the Bush Administration was misleading the American people about the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. (our itals)
Nancy Pelosi has accused the CIA of lying to Congress about torture.
In a press conference given amid questions on what she knew and when about the Bush administration's torture program, Pelosi said that she was explicitly told in her September 2002 briefing that waterboarding was not used. We've since learned that Abu Zubaydah had been waterboarded 83 times by then.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (14)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.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (13)So, what came out of today's hearings on torture?
Here's some fun/horrifying video form the torture hearings this morning of Lindsey Graham browbeating a witness, David Luban of Georgetown Law, who disagrees with him. Graham repeatedly asks questions, then prevents Luban from finishing his answer when the witness starts to say something that Graham objects to.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (11)It looks like Lindsey Graham just cited John Kiriakou's interview with ABC News, in which the former CIA interrogator claimed that the use of enhanced interrogation techniques broke Abu Zubaydah within minutes.
Did Graham miss the fact that ABC News's report has been authoritatively debunked -- and that ABC News has acknowledged as much?
Looks like he did -- or doesn't care.
Philip Zelikow is now being asked about the decision by President Obama to close Guantanamo.
He told the committee:
Guantanamo has become in world public opinion a toxic problem for the United States America. And so we needed to address that in our foreign policy.
Zelikow also said -- contra the fear-mongering by GOPers lately -- we routinely hold in US mainland prisons terror suspects like Ramzi Yousef who are believed to be far more dangerous than many of the detainees in Gitmo.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (7)Ali Soufan is now making the point that torture advocates cite the interrogations of KSM and Jose Padilla as two cases in which torture produced results. But waterboarding wasn't approved until August 1, 2002 -- after the interrogations of those two suspects occurred.
In other words, he seems to be arguing that such techniques weren't used, at least with legal sign-off, to produce that information.
This will undoubtedly need follow up.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (6)This is fascinating...
Sheldon Whitehouse is leading Ali Soufan through questioning. What Soufan is saying is that when he used lawful interrogation techniques agaist Zubaydah, he got actionable intelligence within an hour, including the identification of Khalid Sheik Mohamed as the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.
However, when a contractor came in and began using harsher techniques, Zubaydah clammed up. It became clear that Zubaydah had received training on how to resist torture.
Ali Soufan, who has participated in interrogations of high-level terror suspects including Abu Zubaydah, is giving a detailed explanation of superior intelligence methods, within the Army field manual, that don't involve torture.
Soufan said that when he used such methods on Zubaydah, they produced actionable intelligence in less than an hour.
As for torture, said Soufan: "This amateurish technique is harmful to our long-term interests. It plays into the enemies playbook."
Soufan made clear: "My interest is not to advocate the prosecution of anyone." Rather, he wants to see us learn from our mistakes.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (15)Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, chairing the torture hearings, quotes French revolutionary era diplomat Talleyrand:
The greatest danger in times of crisis comes from the zeal of those who are inexperienced.
Now the next witness, former FBI agent Ali Soufan, is speaking. Soufan has asked that his face not be shown, so most cameras have been removed from the room. The CSPAN camera is showing the other witnesses.
Philip Zelikow just offered a bit of news about the memo he wrote offering an alternative view on the legality of torture, which he said the White House tried to have destroyed.
Zelikow told the Senate committee that the memo, which had not previously been found, "has been located in State Department files and is being reviewed for declassification."
He said that at the time, he thought the effort to have the memo destroyed -- which he described as "informal" -- was "improper" and ignored it.
And it sounds like we may get a look at it soon.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (4)As we prepare for a Senate hearing on the Bush torture program, it's worth taking a look at an interview that one of the key witnesses, Philip Zelikow, gave to Foreign Policy's Laura Rozen yesterday, which provided an advanced look at what he's likely to say.
Zelikow, a top State Department lawyer under Condoleezza Rice, recently revealed that the White House tried to destroy all copies of a memo he wrote that offered an alternative view on the legality of torture. He later said he suspected at the time that Dick Cheney had led that effort.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (6)Earlier today, we posted some video of a combative exchange on MSNBC's Morning Joe between Liz Cheney and Eugene Robinson on the subject of Dick Cheney's vocal support for torture.
Here it is again:
So we told you earlier today that the Philadelphia Inquirer has signed up Bush torture guru John Yoo as a columnist.
But it gets worse. Greg Sargent points out that in March, Yoo used his new perch to attack civil libertarians who have criticized the Bush administration's expansion of executive power -- an expansion in which Yoo played a key role.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)Sen. Jay Rockefeller's office has released a new statement on what he was and wasn't told by the CIA about torture.
Says Rockefeller, referring to the CIA document released last week:
We are not in a position to vouch for the accuracy of the document. We can tell you that in the particular entry stating that Senator Rockefeller was briefed on February 4th of 2003 with an asterisk also noting him as later individually briefed -- that is not correct, or at least is not being reported correctly by people reading the document. The Democratic staff director attended a briefing on Feb. 4, but Senator Rockefeller was not present and was not later briefed individually by anyone in the intelligence community. He was first personally briefed by the intelligence community on Sept 4th, 2003.PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (11)
It was one thing when the Philadelphia Inquirer gave a column to hard-core right-winger Rick Santorum. But that looks like a responsible decision compared to their latest hiring...
Will Bunch, of the Philadelphia Daily News (a unit of the Inquirer), reports that in late 2008, the Inquirer quietly signed a contract with John Yoo, giving a monthly column to the architect of Bush's torture program.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (7)Some progress in the debate over what Nancy Pelosi knew about torture and when she knew it...
The Pelosi camp is now telling The Politico that Pelosi learned in early 2003 that we were waterboarding detainees, but took no real action out of respect for "appropriate" legislative channels.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (3)Bob Graham, the Democratic former Florida senator, has said he has no memory of being told in a briefing about waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques, as a recently released CIA document indicates.
Graham told Greg Sargent this afternoon: "I do not have any recollection of being briefed on waterboarding or other forms of extraordinary interrogation techniques, or Abu Zubaydah being subjected to them."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)This goes way beyond strange bedfellows. But it looks like Dick Cheney has emerged as the single most forceful proponent of a full investigation of the Bush administration's torture policies.
In an interview on CBS's Face The Nation yesterday, the ex-veep claimed, as he has before, that the Obama administration's rejection of torture has made us less safe. But he also went further ever in repeatedly arguing -- contra congressional Republicans -- that we need to look back at the details of the torture program before moving forward.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (11)More fallout from the release of the torture memos.
The Los Angeles Times reports that sleep deprivation was "one of the most important elements in the CIA's interrogation program, used to help break dozens of suspected terrorists, far more than the most violent approaches." It was also "among the methods the agency fought hardest to keep."
In fact, former CIA director Michael Hayden reportedly (and unsuccessfully) lobbied the White House not to expose its use by releasing the memos that described it, asking: "Are you telling me that under all conditions of threat, you will never interfere with the sleep cycle of a detainee?"
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (7)As we said before: Whatever the specifics of exactly what was and wasn't said during the September 2002 CIA briefing that Nancy Pelosi received about enhanced interrogation techniques, it seems clear that she was given enough information to conclude that we either had already conducted waterboarding and other harsh techniques, or that we very well might in the near future.
So the more important question, which seems to be getting less attention today, is what Pelosi did in response. And the short answer appears to be: very little.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (20)So Nancy Pelosi has again denied that she was briefed on the fact that we had already committed waterbaording.
But now a spokesman for Pete Hoekstra, the chair of the House intelligence committee, seems to be telling Greg Sargent that as-yet-unreleased documents will prove once and for all that she was.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (2)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.
The hot story of the morning is the release of CIA documents appearing to show that Nancy Pelosi was briefed on "enhanced interrogation techniques" in September 2002. Things have already descended into a he-said she-said debate -- literally -- over exactly what Pelosi was told, and whether the new information contradicts what she'd said in the past.
But let's set that aside for a second, because according to the documents, it was another Democratic lawmaker who received the first briefing whose summary in the newly released document specifically mentions waterboarding -- the technique that has been at the center of the controversy, especially for Pelosi lately.
Via Think Progress:
Jay Bybee may not be responding to Pat Leahy's invitation that he testify before the Senate Judiciary committee. But that doesn't mean he isn't trying to get out his side of the story behind the scenes.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (11)Mother Jones has advanced the story of an alleged bid by the Bushies to destroy a memo, written by a top state department lawyer, that offered an alternative view on the legality of torture.
Last month, as we noted, Philip Zelikow, a top lawyer for Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, wrote that the Bush White House "attempted to collect and destroy all copies" of the memo. But he hadn't said who at the White House he suspected of being behind that effort.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (10)It looks like the Bushies are going all in to limit the damage from those torture memos.
The Washington Post reports that former Bush administration officials have launched a "behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign," designed to pressure DOJ to soften its forthcoming ethics report into the lawyers who approved torture.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (11)Did the people -- whoever they may be -- who leaked details about Rep. Jane Harman's wiretapped conversation with a suspected Israeli agent, break the law?
The law quite clearly prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of classified information "concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government." And Steven Aftergood, the director of the Project on Government Secrecy, confirmed to TPMmuckraker: "It seems crystal clear that if this was a FISA wiretap," as appears to be the case, "then whoever disclosed it committed a felony."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (25)Congress has asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for a 2005 memo written by a top State Department lawyer, which is said to have taken an alternative view on the legality of torture to that famously offered by DOJ lawyers.
In a letter to Clinton, Reps John Conyers and Howard Berman, who chair, respectively, the Judiciary and Foreign Affairs committees wrote that the memo "may shed important light on the process by which these interrogation practices were evaluated, approved, ad implemented by the former Administration." Reps Jerry Nadler and Bill Delahunt, who chair subcommittees of Judiciary and Foreign Affairs, respectively, also signed on.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (6)
