1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

WaPo: Pelosi briefed on waterboarding in 2002

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by basso, Dec 9, 2007.

  1. basso

    basso Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    29,870
    Likes Received:
    6,551
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html

    read the whole thing Deck. what's striking about this story is the blatant hypocrisy of Pelosi, et al, and that this whole kerfuffle is over three instances. some folks are more interested in battling Bush than they are the folks who are actually trying to kill us- not that this surprises me any longer.

    [rquoter]Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002
    In Meetings, Spy Panels' Chiefs Did Not Protest, Officials Say
    By Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Sunday, December 9, 2007; A01

    In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

    Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

    "The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.

    Congressional leaders from both parties would later seize on waterboarding as a symbol of the worst excesses of the Bush administration's counterterrorism effort. The CIA last week admitted that videotape of an interrogation of one of the waterboarded detainees was destroyed in 2005 against the advice of Justice Department and White House officials, provoking allegations that its actions were illegal and the destruction was a coverup.

    Yet long before "waterboarding" entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.

    With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

    Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."

    Congressional officials say the groups' ability to challenge the practices was hampered by strict rules of secrecy that prohibited them from being able to take notes or consult legal experts or members of their own staffs. And while various officials have described the briefings as detailed and graphic, it is unclear precisely what members were told about waterboarding and how it is conducted. Several officials familiar with the briefings also recalled that the meetings were marked by an atmosphere of deep concern about the possibility of an imminent terrorist attack.

    "In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic," said one U.S. official present during the early briefings. "But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.' "

    Only after information about the practice began to leak in news accounts in 2005 -- by which time the CIA had already abandoned waterboarding -- did doubts about its legality among individual lawmakers evolve into more widespread dissent. The opposition reached a boiling point this past October, when Democratic lawmakers condemned the practice during Michael B. Mukasey's confirmation hearings for attorney general.

    GOP lawmakers and Bush administration officials have previously said members of Congress were well informed and were supportive of the CIA's use of harsh interrogation techniques. But the details of who in Congress knew what, and when, about waterboarding -- a form of simulated drowning that is the most extreme and widely condemned interrogation technique -- have not previously been disclosed.

    U.S. law requires the CIA to inform Congress of covert activities and allows the briefings to be limited in certain highly sensitive cases to a "Gang of Eight," including the four top congressional leaders of both parties as well as the four senior intelligence committee members. In this case, most briefings about detainee programs were limited to the "Gang of Four," the top Republican and Democrat on the two committees. A few staff members were permitted to attend some of the briefings.

    That decision reflected the White House's decision that the "enhanced interrogation" program would be treated as one of the nation's top secrets for fear of warning al-Qaeda members about what they might expect, said U.S. officials familiar with the decision. Critics have since said the administration's motivation was at least partly to hide from view an embarrassing practice that the CIA considered vital but outsiders would almost certainly condemn as abhorrent.

    Information about the use of waterboarding nonetheless began to seep out after a furious internal debate among military lawyers and policymakers over its legality and morality. Once it became public, other members of Congress -- beyond the four that interacted regularly with the CIA on its most sensitive activities -- insisted on being briefed on it, and the circle of those in the know widened.

    In September 2006, the CIA for the first time briefed all members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, producing some heated exchanges with CIA officials, including Director Michael V. Hayden. The CIA director said during a television interview two months ago that he had informed congressional overseers of "all aspects of the detention and interrogation program." He said the "rich dialogue" with Congress led him to propose a new interrogation program that President Bush formally announced over the summer

    "I can't describe that program to you," Hayden said. "But I would suggest to you that it would be wrong to assume that the program of the past is necessarily the program moving forward into the future."

    Waterboarding Used on at Least 3
    Waterboarding as an interrogation technique has its roots in some of history's worst totalitarian nations, from Nazi Germany and the Spanish Inquisition to North Korea and Iraq. In the United States, the technique was first used five decades ago as a training tool to give U.S. troops a realistic sense of what they could expect if captured by the Soviet Union or the armies of Southeast Asia. The U.S. military has officially regarded the tactic as torture since the Spanish-American War.

    In general, the technique involves strapping a prisoner to a board or other flat surface, and then raising his feet above the level of his head. A cloth is then placed over the subject's mouth and nose, and water is poured over his face to make the prisoner believe he is drowning.

    U.S. officials knowledgeable about the CIA's use of the technique say it was used on three individuals -- Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; Zayn Abidin Muhammed Hussein Abu Zubaida, a senior al-Qaeda member and Osama bin Laden associate captured in Pakistan in March 2002; and a third detainee who has not been publicly identified.

    Abu Zubaida, the first of the "high-value" detainees in CIA custody, was subjected to harsh interrogation methods beginning in spring 2002 after he refused to cooperate with questioners, the officials said. CIA briefers gave the four intelligence committee members limited information about Abu Zubaida's detention in spring 2002, but offered a more detailed account of its interrogation practices in September of that year, said officials with direct knowledge of the briefings.

    The CIA provided another briefing the following month, and then about 28 additional briefings over five years, said three U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge of the meetings. During these sessions, the agency provided information about the techniques it was using as well as the information it collected.

    Lawmakers have varied recollections about the topics covered in the briefings.

    Graham said he has no memory of ever being told about waterboarding or other harsh tactics. Graham left the Senate intelligence committee in January 2003, and was replaced by Rockefeller. "Personally, I was unaware of it, so I couldn't object," Graham said in an interview. He said he now believes the techniques constituted torture and were illegal.

    Pelosi declined to comment directly on her reaction to the classified briefings. But a congressional source familiar with Pelosi's position on the matter said the California lawmaker did recall discussions about enhanced interrogation. The source said Pelosi recalls that techniques described by the CIA were still in the planning stage -- they had been designed and cleared with agency lawyers but not yet put in practice -- and acknowledged that Pelosi did not raise objections at the time.

    Harman, who replaced Pelosi as the committee's top Democrat in January 2003, disclosed Friday that she filed a classified letter to the CIA in February of that year as an official protest about the interrogation program. Harman said she had been prevented from publicly discussing the letter or the CIA's program because of strict rules of secrecy.

    "When you serve on intelligence committee you sign a second oath -- one of secrecy," she said. "I was briefed, but the information was closely held to just the Gang of Four. I was not free to disclose anything."

    Roberts declined to comment on his participation in the briefings. Rockefeller also declined to talk about the briefings, but the West Virginia Democrat's public statements show him leading the push in 2005 for expanded congressional oversight and an investigation of CIA interrogation practices. "I proposed without success, both in committee and on the Senate floor, that the committee undertake an investigation of the CIA's detention and interrogation activities," Rockefeller said in a statement Friday.

    Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a former Vietnam War prisoner who is seeking the GOP presidential nomination, took an early interest in the program even though he was not a member of the intelligence committee, and spoke out against waterboarding in private conversations with White House officials in late 2005 before denouncing it publicly.

    In May 2007, four months after Democrats regained control of Congress and well after the CIA had forsworn further waterboarding, four senators submitted written objections to the CIA's use of that tactic and other, still unspecified "enhanced" techniques in two classified letters to Hayden last spring, shortly after receiving a classified hearing on the topic. One letter was sent on May 1 by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.). A similar letter was sent May 10 by a bipartisan group of three senators: Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

    In a rare public statement last month that broached the subject of his classified objections, Feingold complained about administration claims of congressional support, saying that it was "not the case" that lawmakers briefed on the CIA's program "have approved it or consented to it."

    Staff writers Josh White and Walter Pincus and staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.[/rquoter]
     
  2. thadeus

    thadeus Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2003
    Messages:
    8,313
    Likes Received:
    726
    So, Pelosi's a piece of **** too. Because both sides are wrong, that means that they're right? This editorial is all politics, like most of the lame Democrat vs. Republican discussions on this forum.

    The issue is not over which party is worse, because they're both terrible. These threads go on forever, because for every one thing wrong you can find with one party, it's generally not too difficult to find an equivalent wrong in the other (granted, some are better and some are worse on some subjects, but both are dirty and hypocritical).

    The real issue here is that we've let our government run away from us - they are so distanced from the people they're supposed to serve, enjoying expensive meals with lobbyists and becoming members of corporate boards - and all this bickering over which party is more naughty distracts us from the fact that our power has been usurped by the political upper-class.
     
  3. jo mama

    jo mama Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Messages:
    13,486
    Likes Received:
    7,611
    well obviously this makes the bush administration's authorization of illegal torture acts 'a-ok'! :rolleyes:

    after the democratic gains last year pelosi also said that impeachment is off the table. all this article does is further reinforce the fact pelosi is a tool and that the democrats are continually bending over and cowering to the bush administration and not holding them accountable for their crimes.
     
  4. Ottomaton

    Ottomaton Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2000
    Messages:
    18,309
    Likes Received:
    13,617
    That you still really can't understand why people are upset by this is sad to me, like the NAZI Generals who, right up until the moment they were hanging by the neck at Nuremburg, thought that they had done nothing wrong and that the trials were all about revenge.

    You just don't get it, really, do you? And that is not hyperbole, but a statement of fact. You are without basic understanding why anybody cares about the NIE or about torture. They are the bad guys, right? Who cares if they actually have a nuclear program, we need to bomb their nuclear program. Who cares if we are doing something evil, we are the good guys and they are the bad guys, so we are automatically right.

    Amazing. Truly amazing.
     
    #4 Ottomaton, Dec 9, 2007
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2007
  5. Refman

    Refman Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    312
    BINGO!

    That sums this up in a nutshell. Nothing else to say here. BOTH sides of the aisle are dirty. Same s***, different horse.
     
  6. SamFisher

    SamFisher Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    58,986
    Likes Received:
    36,552
    hey look at the jingly keys! jingle jingle jangle!
     
  7. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    54,579
    Likes Received:
    42,677
    Basso;

    May I ask what is the point of this thread? Is it point out that Pelosi is a hypocrite on this issue, defend the practice of water boarding or shame fellow posters?
     
  8. nyquil82

    nyquil82 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2002
    Messages:
    5,174
    Likes Received:
    3
    remember when condi and bush were briefed on the possibility of Bin Laden crashing planes into buildings?

    Dems may visit the land of hypocrisy a lot, but republicans founded and own the whole town.
     
  9. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    49,041
    Likes Received:
    17,617
    If Pelosi new about it, go after her as well. Anybody who knowingly approved torture should be held accountable.

    basso,

    Are you now going after torturers from our govt.? Is that why you posted this. I think that's great if you have joined the side that would like America to hold the moral high ground.
     
  10. SamFisher

    SamFisher Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    58,986
    Likes Received:
    36,552
    I'm not sure if this even fits the definition of hypocrisy. If in 2002 House minority leader hears about waterboarding and doesn't issue a blistering rebuke - is it not permissible to change one's mind about its acceptability in 2006?

    Since 2002, the negative effects that the use of torture have had on U.S. foreign policy and image abroad have drastically tilted the cost benefit analysis against its use. Of course people's opinions have changed.
     
  11. rhadamanthus

    rhadamanthus Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,304
    Likes Received:
    596
    Ottomaton and FB nailed it. If Pelosi has been a player in this charade of justice, she too should be made to step down.

    But basso cares more about his "team" than his country. Furthermore, he has the audacity to accuse his opponents of the same foul politics - even as they continue to advocate actual adherance to the laws and treaties this nation is supposed to uphold. Meanwhile basso just screams "look, they did it too!"

    Truly pathetic.
     
  12. No Worries

    No Worries Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    30,280
    Likes Received:
    17,222
    Congressional officials say the groups' ability to challenge the practices was hampered by strict rules of secrecy that prohibited them from being able to take notes or consult legal experts or members of their own staffs.

    So if Pelosi had publicly spoken out against water boarding in 2002, she goes straight to jail, right?

    Nothing to see here.
     
  13. No Worries

    No Worries Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    30,280
    Likes Received:
    17,222
    The secret Gang of Eight meetings which included Pelosi are now public knowledge. I wondered who leaked that information and why. More hardball from the W Admin I suspect.

    Worst.
    President.
    Ever.
     
  14. insane man

    insane man Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2003
    Messages:
    2,892
    Likes Received:
    5
    she could have objected. she did not. she didn't have to tell the world. but she could have, as any decent human being would, be repulsed by these methods and objected internally at the briefings. she did not.
     
  15. basso

    basso Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    29,870
    Likes Received:
    6,551
    what else happened between 2002 and 2006?
     
  16. No Worries

    No Worries Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    30,280
    Likes Received:
    17,222
    We do not know this.

    Even if she did not object, we will never know if she was bullied into being silent or not.
     
  17. rimrocker

    rimrocker Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 1999
    Messages:
    22,339
    Likes Received:
    8,222
    Well, this is disheartening. You can tell that the people supplying the info for the article are out to pin as much as they can on the Dems and one can certainly understand why most people would not voice objection, particularly at that time on our history... but still... these people are presumably political leaders of the opposition party. Members of Congress can say anything they want from the floor of the house without fear of arrest or legal sanction, so the idea that they were bound by some law is bogus... and the Intelligence Committees were formed to provide oversight on just this sort of thing... membership on the committee carries some responsibility and is not just a permission slip to learn things nobody else gets to know... and really, given the Orwellian aspects of this administration, I can't imagine a clearer case for the option of civil disobedience even if that weren't the case. After all, our history is full of people who took a righteous stand in the face of overwhelming opposition and intimidation. Just look at the guy who blew the whistle on Abu Ghraib. People hate him in his own town, but he still did the right thing. One certainly expects more out of non-Bushies, especially the elected Dem leadership.

    Heck, look at this woman... raped and illegally imprisoned at 20 in Iraq and now trying to do something to help others in the face of opposition from KBR, Halliburton, and the State Department's rules that allow contractors to get away with rape and murder...

    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3977702&page=1

    If a 20 year old woman from Texas can stand up against big business and the State Department, I would certainly expect the Minority Leader of the House and the Dem leaders of the Intelligence committees to stand up for the Constitution and what's right.

    My party once had the courage to literally tear itself apart over Civil Rights because it was the right thing to do. Now, not so much. Craven cowards.

    It really is disheartening. On the moral front... and on the political front... it reinforces the idea that there is no difference and people might as well elect repubs because dems are just as bad. In this case, it's difficult to argue with Refman. Dems failed to draw a difference... failed to show courage... failed to stand up for what's right.

    The only possible good outcome is enough new Dems get swept in next year to team up with others and wrest control of the House and Senate from the compromisers.

    As a kid, I watched the Vietnam War, the protests, Watergate... I was born into and lived through the Cold War... and this as dark a period as I remember... made even darker because it's entirely of our own making...

    [​IMG]
     
  18. Ottomaton

    Ottomaton Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2000
    Messages:
    18,309
    Likes Received:
    13,617
    rimrocker: Members of the Intelligence Committee are required to sign a legally binding secrecy nondisclosure agreement. If they reveal anything that is secret on the floor of the congress they can be prosecuted, which is why it never happens.
     
  19. SamFisher

    SamFisher Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    58,986
    Likes Received:
    36,552
    four years of mismanagement from the bush administration and lay-down republican congress, including one of the most spectacular blunders in history - a stream of urine that you told us was rain.
     
  20. rimrocker

    rimrocker Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 1999
    Messages:
    22,339
    Likes Received:
    8,222
    BS.

    Article 1, Section 6:
    Pusillanimous wimps would rather abide by some nondisclosure agreement than challenge torture using a tool given them by the Constitution.

    Yes, you may get kicked off the Intelligence Committee. Yes, your status may be compromised. Maybe you lose to the Rove in the next election. So what. You're a freaking elected official, a leader in the Democratic Party... not a wimpy accountant who doesn't want to blow the whistle on his boss because he's got a sick kid and fears the ramifications.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now