WaPo: Pelosi briefed on waterboarding in 2002, didn't object

[shraby]

EZ Writer has done it again! Early WaPo tomorrow's edition:

Lead story in Sunday's Washington Post (not online yet)

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 future-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.

<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/8/202552/338>

Really sickening if true.

[originalpckelly]

1. I guess this explains why she's Speaker.

[autorank]

54. ...and why most all of her "subjects" behave so well;) n/t

[zabet]

2. This issue is just getting

uglier and uglier with
more and more info coming
to light.
:puke::puke::puke:

[shraby]

4. Hopefully the final outcome will

be clean air for the first time since 2000.

[Richard Steele]

3. Grrrecommended.

[bonito]

26. What you said n/t

[terisan]

5. Was info declared classified? Be careful of Bush et al trying to blame others for his crimes.

While Congress makes the laws, Congress people are not free to break the laws.

If congress was briefed-how were they briefed, were they told Justice cleared the interrogation techniques, and were they threatened re prosecution re disclosure of classified info. If they were briefed, were the top newspapers briefed?

I don't want to exempt anyone from accountability but Bush-Cheney et al and many high up in military Chain of Command are wiley and have done evil----and are good at blaming others for their evil doing.

Remember how they got the underlings in Iraq sentenced for torture while they themselves went free without even charges.

[EFerrari]

6. That's a good point. Beware of BushCo trying to off load its crimes.

And Nancy has certainly known about our TORTURE policy long enough to come up with a policy.

[gratuitous]

9. Yeah, we surely don't know enough details here

I know that Sen. Rockefeller has been briefed on all sorts of intelligence matters, but he can't talk about them publicly. And what do you think you'd do if you were a witness to torture, and nobody outside the room knew you were there? You might be the next person strapped to the board.

When Dr. Rice was lying her ass off before the committee, nobody could call her on it until the NIE was declassified, and she had to come off the "nobody could have predicted" schtick when the title was read out: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside U.S." This bunch knows how to keep the code of omerta.

[LiberalFighter]

27. Were those briefed aware of the implications as someone like Murtha would know?

It's easy to sway a person when they do not have all necessary knowledge.

[nightrider767]

42. Good Point and,,

One thing we don't know is what Nancy saw. I don't know how they might do it, but theoretically, they might have figured out a way to put a non-torture spin on there presentation.

I'd imagine even the Nazi's started torture for all the right reasons,,,,,,

[Truth2Tell]

53. You can't classify illegal activities

If a Congress member is briefed on a classified program that they deem to be in violation of Federal law, they are not obligated to keep it a secret.

[terisan]

55. ..and if US Justice Dept cleared the program as in accord with US law ? In 2002

no Democrat in the House could even initiate an investigation. It was totally ruled by Republicans . I think the Washington Post story is propaganda. No Bush administration offical has been willing to have his/her name associated with it.

Remember the outing of Plame?

Same playbook.

Why would you think the Bush administration would be honest in briefing Congress?


This is a propaganda technique. You want to split the enemy (to them that is the Democrats) and turn the rank and file against the leaders.

[Truth2Tell]

65. Have any of these Dems

denied this? If they do then I will believe them. But it's a fair bet that they won't.

The fact is that our Party was split when some members decided to acquiesce in Bushco's illegal doings. Maybe the Repugs do want to split us with these techniques- but they only work if some of us (Pelosi et al) play along.

[montanacowboy]

7. Well, it's all clear now

I always had a feeling that impeachment was off the table because Pelosi was somehow involved in the filthy mess - what can she say now if she was part of it? and Rockerfeller? that total POS, he wrote a letter and hid it.... did he wet his diaper too? as for Harman...well we all know what she is

I am so fuckin sick and tired to death of this whole thing - Democrats and Republicans have done this thing together and together they stick through thick and thin, protecting each other's asses.

I don't know what the American people can do to rid themselves of the curse of these politicians who are destroying our country while they enrich themselves and their families.

[sellitman]

8. Time to get our house in order.

If we don't remove Nancy how can we bitch about Darth Cheney & Clan?

Shame on us!

[Le Taz Hot]

51. "WE"can't remove a Speaker of the House.

Only the House can do that. Sheehan is running against Pelosi and even if by some miracle Sheehan would win the seat (NOT gonna happen) there are dozens more corpor-lackeys where Pelosi came from. No, the DLC is in charge and they're not letting go anytime soon.

[lovuian]

10. Super OUCH

pelosi is playing with the Bush team and she's goin to get burned

[Canuckistanian]

11. Well, that explains a few things, sort of

Nancy can't exactly use torture as a means of starting impeachment proceedings, can she? Not now.

What other crimes was she complicit in? FISA violations? The US Attorney scandal? Plame???

[ORDagnabbit]

12. for years been saying demopublican and republicrat are one party...

[babylonsister]

13. So Harman was the lone dissenter, thus her letter? Wow, this is getting

more and more bizarre. I need to read the whole thing and make sure it's not just skuttlebutt attributed to 'anonymous' sources.

[druidity33]

20. who were the four?

Obviously Harman and Pelosi...

how many D's total?

[babylonsister]

21. From the link in the OP:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/8/202552/338

The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and fellow Democrats Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (W.Va.), and Republicans Rep. Porter Goss (Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (Kan).

[druidity33]

25. didn't Leahy

write a letter? An objection he wanted on the record?

Forgot about Goss... agency head... CIA?

Roberts purports to be a stand-up guy... with a majority of D-ish folk on oversight, how did this get by?

:(

[babylonsister]

33. Roberts was way-deep in this, and is not a stand-up guy. He got out.

And I don't know what Leahy knew-nothing perhaps?

[Warren Stupidity]

14. My EverReady List of War Criminals:

It just keeps growing and growing!

[ixion]

15. way to uphold the constitution, Nance

NOT!

:grr:


If we are ever to regain respect in the world, we NEED TO STOP TORTURING PEOPLE.

It is pathetic to discuss it.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

16. "Off the table"

I got it.

K&R

[jaysunb]

17. One reason impeachment is "off " the table

:evilfrown: complicity, children....complicity.

[shraby]

18. Now that the cat is out of the bag,

what will Pelosi do? Deny or retaliate by putting impeachment on the table?

[trashcanistanista]

19. I would like her to resign.

But that's just me.

[KittyWampus]

22. DU'ers are so fucking gullible. So many are willing to believe ANYTHING if it makes a Dem look bad

Not one other DU'ers has wondered who the "two officials" are who offered this information?

[stevedeshazer]

28. I do wonder that

Who were they?

Nevertheless, this is a really disturbing story.

[BadgerKid]

23. Here come the dirty little secrets

some have been speculating the R's have on the D's. Staying tuned...

[Disturbed]

24. One thing is true. Pelosi said that Impeachment is off the table.

That alone is all I need to understand that she & the Dem hierarchy are complicit with the
Bush Regime.

[babylonsister]

29. But it's to ensure Dems get elected in 08! Who the hell cares what

has or will happen in the interim? :sarcasm: but not really...

Is it tunnel vision, their eye on the prize, but what happened to rule of law and the Constitution?

[L. Coyote]

30. Fresh from the City of Lies, I assume. Who is trying to basn Pelosi this time?

And, what is her response? I'll withhold judgment until then, and until I know if this one came from the WMD workshop in the White House basement.

[seriousstan]

31. I guess this refutes the "anthrax" and "blackmailed" tinfoilers. It was blatant complicity.

[OzarkDem]

32. Don't they understand torture doesn't work?

Dems in Congress should know better.

[lumpy]

34. From the article.

Rep. Jane Harman, who replaced Pelosi as the committee's top Democrat in January 2oo3, 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.

[Lex]

36. Bet she's glad she wrote that letter of protest.

Seems I remember something about Rockefeller doing the same thing?

[Lex]

35. What's SHE say? Denied it or what?

:shrug:

[ProSense]

37. That point makes no sense in light of what we know, and has no relevance to the current debate

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.

What does that mean? The prisons were secret and the torture just exposed (earliest media attention coming in late 2005).

Jane Mayer's indispensable story on the CIA black sites and the unlawful torture...

Why would they destroy tapes showing them engage in techniques that lawmakers saw and had no objections to? The second paragraph in the OP is hearsay.

"Those tapes must have depicted pretty gruesome evidence of serious criminal conduct." (part 2)

[Maven]

38. Well, we can therefore deduce that the tapes showed something far more heinous than waterboarding.

[ProSense]

41. There is no evidence that the statement in the article is fact, it reads more like spin

The first paragraph in the OP tells us nothing, the second paragraph is hearsay. It's simply throwing stuff out there and connecting an incident about virtual tours of CIA detention sites (whatever that means) with a rumor by anonymous sources.

[magellan]

39. Secrecy rules WERE in play

From Daily Kos:

"Rep. Jane Harman, who replaced Pelosi as the committee's top Democrat in January 2oo3, 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."

That being said, I was sickened when Durbin used this same excuse last year when FINALLY admitting that he'd known Bush** was lying to America about the Iraq pre-war intelligence but couldn't say so at the time due to secrecy. Durbin's statement:

“I was angry about it. Frankly, I couldn’t do much about it. Because, you see, in the Intelligence Committee, we’re sworn to secrecy. We cant walk outside the door and say ‘the statement made yesterday by the White House is in direct contradiction to classified information that’s being given to this Congress.’ We can’t do that. We couldn’t make those statements. And so, in my frustration, I sat here on the floor of the Senate and listened to this heated debate about invading Iraq thinking ‘the American people are being misled. They are not being told the truth.’”

What ELSE do the Dems know that they aren't saying/prosecuting because they value their oaths of "secrecy" more than their oaths of office?

[ShaneGR]

40. So, uh, did Pelosi push for it to be harder?

Because I don't see that in here. I just see a blind link to washingpost.com. in fact, there's really no story to back up any of the OPs origanl post. Just some links from dailykos saying the same thing. If it was Pelosi, that's bad, but I've been fooled by bad journalism before on this board, i.e., Will Pitt's organization putting out the whole Karl Rove to be indicted bullshit.

[orleans]

43. let's read some of this together, shall we?

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; Page 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.


snip

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."


snip

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.


snip

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."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html?hpid=topnews

[LeftCoast]

44. All I know is we're being told one side of this issue by a bunch of known liars.

I'm going to wait before I decide what the truth really is here.

[L. Coyote]

45. BULLSHIT ALERT: This story is not what it is presented as. Just the opposite.

This is a propaganda piece, probably engineered to aid a cover-up of CIA failing to comply with the law and fully informing Congress of their war crimes. Now, that is easy to believe!

Read the whole story before you buy the bullshit Pelosi bashing. Excerpts:

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.

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."

[Leopolds Ghost]

47. BULLSHIT ALERT: Pelosi did not raise objections at the time

And that is the crux of the matter (and your own excerpt).

[Perry Logan]

46. Reminder: the U.S. media news--even WaPo--exists to confuse and demoralize the Left.

[autorank]

56. 2 questions - (and yes, the media does demoralize everyone, including the left)

There needs to be more information released on this. Let say it shows that either 1) Pelosi was briefed and did not object OR 2) Pelosi was briefed and approved?

In the case of 2, wouldn't you say that she's betrayed her leadership role, actually her role as a member of Congress and that she should resign immediately.

This scenario includes her direct approval of this vile procedure, no doubt about it, no b.s., no lies. We know that it's true, in this scenario.

In the case of 1, she was briefed and said nothing (which I would take as silent agreement), then shouldn't the same standards applyu?

I'm really just curious where you'd come down on this. If this is just another con job, then that's another reason to remain vigilant about MSM and their masters.

If either scenario is true, however, it's just awful.

[KharmaTrain]

48. What Part Of Classified Doesn't Anyone Understand?

Ahhh...another Pelosi smear job.

First...she was not a Democratic leaer at the time...Gephardt was Minority Leader and was just a committee member. Those hearing are classified...with severe penalties should they be exposed. Considering this was in the wake of 9/11 and during the run-up to Iraq, any dissent against this regime at that time would have turned into a media feeding frenzy against Democrats.

It had to be extremely frustrating for most Democrats who were briefed on the crimes of this regime and, not only had no power to do anything about it, but if they leaked (and it could easily be traced), they'd be facing criminal charges.

Here's another right wing attempt to distract attention from the real crimes and criminals. Hopefully some people here are smart enough to see through this game.

[SpiralHawk]

49. She is proving to have the moral integrity of a republicon

how low can you go?

[spanone]

50. Sunday morning HEADLINE in my paper...

what's the purpose of this article? I don't get it.

so, pelosi knew...does that mean they can torture? because Nancy Pelosi knew?

because pelosi was briefed the CIA can toss out the Geneva conventions?

bullshit hit story

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

bullshit...just who was this 'u.s. official' and who asked the question ? it 'implies' pelosi.

B U L L S H I T


Karl Rove is alive and well in propaganda world.

[kansasblue]

52. Only Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) formally objected.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Pelosi_did_not_object_to_waterboarding_1209.html

Only Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) -- then the second-ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee who would supplant Pelosi in 2003 -- formally objected. Harman, who was set to lead the House Intelligence Committee when the Democrats retook the chamber in 2006, was pushed aside by Pelosi when she took over as Speaker, in what was seen as an element of personal rivalry.

[autorank]

58. The cult of personality...

Well, that's an interesting and probably prescient interpretation. I was not awayre of Harman's letter. She's very intelligent to have done that. It also shows a real sense of proportion and morality.

[spanone]

57. hearsay, nothing else.

[L. Coyote]

59. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, It is a Crime to Lie to Congress, and the Torture Cover Up Conundrum.

From: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2435841

"How to get out of this mess, now that we have been caught lying to Congress, a crime," someone in the Political Wingnut Office no doubt thought. Well, you already know the rest of the story. Or, do you? Maybe we all need to step back and do a little analysis. Some on ourselves for being fools, but mostly to see past the smoke and mirrors of daily deception and official lies, the daily bread that blinds like ergot on rye.

On further reflection, it seems a Political Wingnut went on the offensive before the cover up of torture becomes the crime de jour. Or is it crime of the hour now. It sure seemed like it last week. Brace yourself for this week, I'm guessing, because the real implications will soon surface. The Intelligence Community is bound by law to report to key members of Congress. So, guess who has the goods on the liars who did not report honestly to Congress? The ones being targeted by the recent propaganda assault, esp. the Speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi.

NUMBER ONE: It is a crime to lie to Congress. Therein lies the inception of the real story.

NUMBER TWO: The Intelligence Community (read Bush Administration) is required by law to inform Congress of its war crimes, like torture!

There is your conundrum in raw formulation. Screwed if you tell on yourself, screwed if you did not. So now, we are seeing the after effects.

.......... MORE ......

[McCamy Taylor]

60. This is part of the plan to discredit the NIE so Bush can invade Iran

Here is how it works.

Have the NYT tell the country that in 2005 the CIA destroyed two torture tapes. The CIA confirms it. Then tell the nation that Congressional Dems knew about and approved of torture. That way Dems can not impeach the WH for ordering the torture, they can only investigate and charge the CIA for the crime of the cover up--destroying the tapes. Angry Congress will proceed to do just that.

CIA has now been branded a criminal organization just like Nixon and Scooter Libby. Send out your media whores to question the NIE in light of this. It is happening today in the NYT and WaPo

Here are my two latest threads about this. I predicted this story about the Dems yesterday.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/105

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/106

[balantz]

61. From what I understand

Congress was also shown all of the photos of the Abu Grahib horrors. They apparently accept torture as justified in this war on Terra.

[Baby Snooks]

62. Today terrorists, tomorrow San Francisco's homeless....

Madame Speaker is beginning to remind one more of Madame de Sade.

No doubt she was wondering if waterboarding might work more effectively on the homeless in San Francisco than mere arrest. Just scare them all out of San Francisco. Out of sight, out of mind.

Most Americans are out of sight, out of mind with Nancy Pelosi. Along with their protections and rights under the Constitution.

[balantz]

64. I fear she is not good.

I think I see a mean, haughty streak of wealthy ruler in her.

[Baby Snooks]

63. Today terrorists, tomorrow San Francisco's homeless....

Madame Speaker is beginning to remind one more of Madame de Sade.

Maybe she was wondering if waterboarding might work more effectively on the homeless in San Francisco than mere arrest. Just scare them all out of San Francisco. Out of sight, out of mind.

Most Americans are out of sight, out of mind with Nancy Pelosi. Along with their protections and rights under the Constitution.