Story Comments
Posted by: Spadecaller 7 months, 2 weeks ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
92%
Spadecaller7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It may be politically unpopular among some members of both parties, but President Obama and responsible members of Congress need to step forward once and for all and call for a thorough investigation. Enough with protecting those that have either committed crimes or those that were complicit and looked the other way.
Reply
WE need a good dry cleaning in Washington.-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Records unclear if House speaker knew when waterboarding was going on
Reply
WASHINGTON - CIA records show House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was briefed in September 2002 on harsh interrogation techniques being used on terrorist suspects, but the records do little to settle a dispute over whether she knew waterboarding had already been used against one prisoner by then.
The release in April of once-classified details about harsh Bush-era interrogation techniques, which President Barack Obama last week called "torture," has caused a squall of recriminations among congressional and Bush administration leaders who knew about the program.
No specific waterboarding mention
Pelosi is only mentioned in the first briefing, on Sept. 4, 2002. The chart, drawn from the CIA briefers' memories and meeting notes, says the meeting described the interrogation techniques that had been used on alleged terrorist Abu Zubaydah.
But the CIA chart does not specifically mention the use of waterboarding at that briefing.
According to legal memos released in April, Abu Zubayda was the first of three prisoners to be waterboarded. He underwent the procedure at least 83 times in August 2002.
The first mention of waterboarding comes in the description of a February 2003 meeting attended by Pelosi's successor on the House Intelligence Committee, California Democrat Jane Harman. Harman wrote to the CIA expressing concern about the techniques, the only known objection formally raised by a member of Congress at that time.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30638518/
-
-
30%
Endoscopy7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The fact that far left people like you never want to recognize is that nothing illegal was done. Several members of congress are on record stating that in 2002 congress was given breifings for all members that wanted to attend about what methods were to be used. It was leaked by the door keepers that all except one was in favor of the methods and many asked if harsher methods could be used.
Reply
Also the far lefties always ignore our federal law and it requires pain, threat of pain or death, or permanent damage to be torture. Go look it up I have posted it many times. Do not use Wikipedia since who knows what has been added or modified but the actual law itself. Do not try to use the treaty route because the Senate ALWAYS makes exceptions if a treaty is in variance to US laws.-
-
-
100%
mesodude7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Intolerable...I love the remark: "Go look it up I have posted it many times."
Reply
Endo's mantra?"
--Hehe...I thought it was "I didn't support Bush and everyone should know that based on the number of nice things I *didn't* say about him." ;-P
-
-
100%
mesodude7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanks for some level-headed commentary, CRYMTYPHON. What saddens me is that people here like Endo are pumping their fists in glee as if confirming that Nancy Pelosi "knew all" would somehow absolve us as a country. Cons. this won't change SQUAT about our country if it's determined that "Pelosi knew." Your country is STILL guilty of torture and you should be ashamed of yourselves for thinking this is good news for you.
Reply
It's extremely sad that cons here are willing to argue that down is up and up is down--if it means they don't look like such moronic fu...er, suckers...for having supported the Bush/Cheney torture administration for 8 years. Some of these cons are positively demented in their partisanship.. ;-(
-
-
100%
mesodude7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Republicans Appropriating Torture
Reply
By: emptywheel Friday May 8, 2009 5:07 am
17
diggs
digg it
As I reported some weeks ago, Nancy Pelosi suggested one way the Bush Administration worked around the intelligence committees on torture and wiretapping was via the Appropriations Committees.
Q: Does this call into question the value of the briefing then, if they are not telling you fully...
Speaker Pelosi. I have questioned the values of the briefings over and over and over again. We only know what they choose to tell us and the manner and time in which they tell us. And that is why when people are talking about - whether they are talking about torture, or whether they are talking about wiretapping, or whatever you are talking about, we really have to have a change now in how Congress can do its oversight, because we expect and demand the truth.
And that's why I, when I became Speaker, established this joint committee between the Appropriations Committee and the Intelligence Committee, because the fact is they really were not fully briefing the Intelligence Committee. And they have to answer to the Appropriations Committee because that's where their funding comes from.
It is a long story, it's an evolution. It used to be the Intelligence Committee - you couldn't appropriate unless the Intelligence Committee authorized. It was almost effectively an appropriation. Over time the Intelligence in the Bush years became part of supplementals so there was absolutely no sharing of information. They would just stick the request in the supplementals. We said, "Okay, if they are going right to appropriations, we will have members of the Intelligence Committee serve in this hybrid committee, part Intelligence, part Appropriations." [my emphasis]
Now, the Appropriations briefing for torture actually came much later than it did for wiretapping (three years after the start of the program, rather than immediately after). But look at what CIA's amazingly self-serving list of briefings describes having happened:
October 18, 2005: Interrogation techniques briefed. Ted Stevens, Thad Cochran
September 19, 2006: Briefing on full detainee program, including the 13 EITs. Bill Young, John Murtha (John Murtha did not stay for EIT portion of briefing)
October 11, 2007: The Director discussed the number of detainees subjected to EITs and discussed EITs. John Murtha
First, note the timing of these. The first Appropriations briefing took place during the debate on the Detainee Treatment Act, at a time when there were a significant number of Republican-only briefings: two for Fristie, one for McCain, one for Duncan Hunter, one for Crazy Pete Hoekstra, and the briefing for "Appropriations."
But they on briefed the Republicans in charge of Defense Appropriations--not the Democrats.
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/08/repub...
-
-
100%
mesodude7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Breaking News!! CIA Manipulating Briefing Process!!
Reply
No. Not really breaking. We knew that CIA was playing around with its obligation to inform the intelligence committees before it starts any big new projects--like opening torture factories around the world.
But that's the real story of this briefing list--aside from what a bunch right wingers are claiming it says, the actual details of the briefing list notwithstanding. The real story is that the CIA was playing a bunch of games to be able to claim it had informed Congress, even while only informing some of Congress some things.
First, CIA has officially confirmed what I have been saying for weeks. The CIA first briefed Congress on torture on September 4, 2002, 35 days after CIA purportedly began waterboarding and much longer after we know CIA started torturing Abu Zubaydah. Moreover, we have on the record statements from Pelosi and Goss (and I've had even stronger assurances elsewhere) that CIA did not tell Congress they were already in the business of torture. Their discussions of torture were all prospective, and they may even have stated clearly that they had not used these techniques yet, which (if true) would be a clear and direct lie to Congress.
Second, look at when--according to the CIA's specific assertions--they first talked about waterboarding to members of Congress:
February 4, 2003: Pat Roberts and a Republican and a Democratic staffer (but not Jello Jay); according to the CIA there was no specific mention of waterboarding in the February 5, 2003 briefing for Porter Goss and Jane Harman
July 13, 2004: Porter Goss and Jane Harman
July 15, 2004: Pat Roberts and Jello Jay
Now, it's possible that the people trying to smear Pelosi with this are correct and CIA mentioned waterboarding in September 2002. But that's not what the CIA says. Once you account for the fact that Jello Jay did not attend the February 4 briefing, the CIA says it first informed Democrats about waterboarding in July 2004, only after the CIA's own Inspector General had declared the program cruel and inhuman (and note, the Senate intelligence leaders, at least, got a copy of that document in June 2004, so the CIA couldn't very well pretend that they hadn't been waterboarding).
Note, too, that the CIA claims to have discussed legal issues in the July briefing with Harman and Goss, but not in the July briefing with Jello Jay and Roberts. We know this to be false.
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/08/break...
-
loading ...
tehranchik
gamahuche
spkguy
bubba2
dadesider
mesodude
PsychoHosebeast
onlyonesecret
scott4261
CRYMTYPHON
tadair919
normallysilent
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.