Media let GOP change the subject in torture debate
SUMMARY: Adopting the GOP's emphasis on what Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats knew about the Bush administration's use of harsh interrogation techniques, some in the media have ignored evidence that the Bush administration began using the tactics before briefing Democrats, and that upon learning of them, Rep. Jane Harman unsuccessfully expressed concerns to the CIA.
By focusing on what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and other congressional Democrats knew about the Bush administration's use of harsh interrogation techniques, as the GOP has advocated, some in the media have ignored evidence that the Bush administration began using the tactics before briefing congressional Democrats, and that upon learning of the techniques in 2003, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee expressed concerns to the CIA, but did not have the authority to force a change. Indeed, according to a May 2005 Bush Justice Department memo, following the Bush administration's authorization of the harsh interrogation techniques, CIA officials used one of the most controversial techniques, waterboarding, on Al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah in August 2002 -- before any congressional Democrats had been briefed on any of the tactics. According to the same Justice Department memo, CIA officials waterboarded Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in March 2003 -- after Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) had reportedly raised concerns to the CIA about the techniques in February 2003.
In the May 30, 2005, Justice Department memo, then-principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury wrote that "[t]he CIA used the waterboard 'at least 83 times during August 2002' in the interrogation of Zubaydah." Yet, according to a chart of "Member Briefings on Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" (EITs) included in a recently released CIA document, the first briefing on the EITs was not given to members of Congress until the following month, on September 4, 2002. Then-Rep. Porter Goss (R-FL) and Pelosi, at the time the two ranking members on the House Intelligence Committee, were the only two congressional members listed as having been present at the briefing, and the document does not detail which specific EITs were discussed.
The CIA document listed Harman as having been briefed on the EITs on February 5, 2003, when she was the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. According to reports, Harman disclosed in December 2007 that she had sent a classified letter to the CIA on February 10, 2003, raising concerns about the EITs. Upon disclosing the letter, Harman reportedly noted that she had been prohibited from discussing the matter publicly. However, despite Harman reportedly raising concerns to the CIA in February 2003, according to the Bradbury memo, the CIA "used the waterboard" technique "183 times during March 2003 in the interrogation of KSM [Mohammed]."
Among the media outlets that have ignored these key facts in reports about what congressional Democrats knew is The Washington Times, which reported in a May 9 article: "Defenders of the [enhanced interrogation] practices argue in part that Mrs. Pelosi and others in Congress were told at the time of the techniques and made no move to stop them."
Similarly, on the May 8 edition of Fox News' Special Report, chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle reported that "Fox has obtained the official log showing which members of Congress were briefed about the enhanced interrogation techniques and what they were told," and aired Sen. Lamar Alexander's (R-TN) statement, "It's an opportunity for those members to be informed, to object, and to stop, I would assume, what they didn't like." Angle then claimed, "But no one did object." Later in the segment, Angle noted that "in September 2003, the log shows Porter Goss and Democrat Jane Harman were '[b]riefed on EITs, including a slide presentation, where non-enhanced and enhanced interrogation techniques were named, described and compared on the same slide.' " He added: "And on it goes for 10 pages, laying out in some detail what members of Congress were told, and all the while they were voting to approve intelligence funding without objection." Despite referring to Harman, Angle did not mention that Harman reportedly raised concerns about the EITs.
A May 8 Republican National Committee press release cited an earlier May 8 report by Angle in asserting, "Pelosi Had Several Opportunities To Raise Objections To The Enhanced Interrogation Techniques That She Had Been Briefed On In 2002." The release further stated, "The House Voted 13 Times To Authorize Intelligence Funds From 2002 To 2006; No Lawmakers Raised Objections Including Democrats Who Had Been Briefed On The Enhanced Interrogation Techniques."
From the May 9 Washington Times article:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Friday questioned the accuracy of an intelligence memo that appeared to conflict with her previous statements that she was not told of waterboarding at a classified briefing she attended in 2002 on CIA interrogation techniques.
The California Democrat is at the center of an intensifying debate on Capitol Hill over the Bush administration's interrogation policies, which critics condemn as torture. Defenders of the practices argue in part that Mrs. Pelosi and others in Congress were told at the time of the techniques and made no move to stop them.
A Director of National Intelligence memo released late Thursday said that Mrs. Pelosi was at a classified briefing in September 2002 in which the waterboarding of al Qaeda terrorism suspect Abu Zubaydah was discussed in detail.
Mrs. Pelosi Friday stuck to her denial.
"As reported in the press, a cover letter from CIA Director [Leon E.] Panetta accompanying the briefings memo released this week concedes that the descriptions provided by the CIA may not be accurate," she said in a statement.
She did not address previous comments she made that put her at odds with the report, but noted that the September 2002 briefing was one of 40 such meetings she attended with lawmakers.
Mrs. Pelosi said she was told some enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, were thought by the Bush administration to be legal and could be used in the future.
The DNI report's summary of the agenda of the September 2002 briefing reads: "Briefing on [enhanced interrogation techniques] including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of the particular EITs that had been employed."
"Some Democrats seem to have conveniently dis-remembered this briefing," said Missouri Sen. Christopher S. Bond, ranking Republican on the Senate intelligence committee.
From the May 8 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
BAIER: Well, what did she know? And when did she know it? The "she" is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The "what" concerns information about enhanced interrogation techniques that Pelosi has denounced. But has she painted herself into a corner? We report. You decide. Here is chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle.
[begin video clip]
ANGLE: Fox has obtained the official log showing which members of Congress were briefed about the enhanced interrogation techniques and what they were told.
ALEXANDER: It's an opportunity for those members to be informed, to object, and to stop, I would assume, what they didn't like.
ANGLE: But no one did object. Speaker Pelosi, for instance, was in on the earliest briefing.
REP. PETE HOEKSTRA (R-MI): If we're going to have a full investigation, Nancy Pelosi should be the first witness.
ANGLE: Ms. Pelosi was the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee in September 2002, and one of the first to be briefed after the U.S. captured Abu Zubaydah, a high-ranking Al Qaeda operative. Though Ms. Pelosi has repeatedly acknowledged she was briefed, she recently and suddenly seemed to deny it.
PELOSI: We were not, I repeat, we were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used.
ANGLE: The emphasis seems to be on "were used." Speaker Pelosi would not appear on camera today, but conceded in a statement she was told the techniques would be used, saying she "was briefed on interrogation techniques the Administration was considering using in the future." But even that is at odds with the official record of the briefing that she got along with Republican Porter Goss.
The log says they received a "[b]riefing on EITs," meaning enhanced interrogation techniques, "including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of particular EITs that had been employed." A current member of the Intelligence Committee says Pelosi's explanation doesn't hold water.
HOEKSTRA: Well, I really don't remember what happened, and anyway, I -- there's nothing I could have done about it -- I mean, that's what the speaker is doing right now.
ANGLE: Pelosi wasn't the only one informed. Some 65 lawmakers took part in 40 briefings once the U.S. started capturing high-ranking Al Qaeda operatives such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the planner of 9-11.
ALEXANDER: That means they had ample opportunity to say what they thought about it.
ANGLE: In early 2003, Senators Jay Rockefeller and Pat Roberts were told in detail how the waterboard was used, for instance.
And in September 2003, the log shows Porter Goss and Democrat Jane Harman were "[b]riefed on EITs, including a slide presentation, where non-enhanced and enhanced interrogation techniques were named, described, and compared on the same slide."
And on it goes for 10 pages, laying out in some detail what members of Congress were told, and all the while they were voting to approve intelligence funding without objection.
HOEKSTRA: The House voting record -- clearly Congress consistently voted to fund these programs and to move forward.
[end video clip]
ANGLE: Now, remember, much of this was in the first couple of years after 9-11 and the CIA was getting intelligence that helped disrupt several terrorist plots. Lawmakers apparently didn't want to stop that, but when it became public, some started criticizing a program they'd known about for years and had never objected to -- Bret.
BAIER: All right, Jim. Thank you.















Ratings.
Focusing on the criminals and their deeds is pertinent, important and responsible... i.e. a recipe for ratings poison.
Going after the Democrats, however, makes for great Sexy Action News, which is crucial for ad revenue when you've got media personalities with multi-million-dollar contracts.
The media is two scoops of bias and two scoops of stupid.
The reason they bring up Pelosi's complicity in the use of torture techniques is because they are trying to say that if Nancy Pelosi didn't object, it can't be torture.
The Bush Administration twisted the definition of torture to try to pretend what they were doing wasn't torture.
They say that our SERE trainers do it to our servicemen, so it can't be torture.
They say that Pelosi didn't object to it, so it can't be torture.
It's all part of the plan to pretend it wasn't torture. But of course it was. Some people died because they were tortured so extensively. Some people went mad. Others recovered, but it was still torture.
I don't care if it was Democrats or Republicans who turned our country into a haven for wwar criminals. Just find out who did it and put them on trial.
Plus as an extra bonus, it will be fun watching Republicans defend Pelosi.
do you have the same intensity with beheadings, so called "honor killings" or how about the killing of Homosexuals in Iran.
And Bush, and Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, ...
I've always believed neither the media or Congress was probably capable of walking & chewing gum at the same time, so none of this surprises me.
The Bush administration needs to be held accountable of course, but we need to know who didn't hold them accountable as well, be they Republican or Democratic members of Congress.
I know I've stated the obvious above, but I'm sure someone here will disagree ;-)
I think it's important that the torture issue and the economy be worked on simultaneously, as well as myriad other issues, of course. It can be done - it's not one or the other, notwithstanding your obvious disregard for Congress, which I somewhat understand.
After all President Obama did swear to uphold the constitution, and use of torture is a constitutional issue imo.
As far as Pelosi and what she did and didn't know, I do agree with others posters that the media focus is designed to find her complicit for nefarious reasons. And It's my opinion that she didn't have culpability. But the matter does need to be thoroughly dissected and accounts be brought to bear.
And I'm glad to see you back. I thought you'd given up on us.
We're both secure enough in our own deep manliness to admit this.
It could also be that the Media realize now that they also dropped the ball, not only on torture, but in the Big WMD Propaganda Campaign. Skeptical voices were few and far between among the drumbeats to depose Saddam and "save" us from his make-believe arsenal.
Maybe they'd rather not get into this topic at all, as it would surely embarrass them, too.
I remember when Dan Abrams still had his show, and a guest brought up that topic. Abrams was visibly uncomfortable and refused to talk about it. "I'll talk to you about that off the air", he said. It didn't come up again.
I found that extremely odd. Obviously some Network brass are embarrassed by that whole incident.
Right, but the Pulitzer is current news. I pray (hard for an atheist) that somehow she will mention it, or Keith will, but not very hopeful.
But what do you think of the timing of the Veritas venture -- one week before 9/11? They were right on the penny, eh?
http://rongstad.blogspot.com/2009/05/judge-napolitano-says-bush-is-felon-for.html
Judge Napolitano is wrong. The 10 techniques were determined to not be
torture by the Justice department. Therefore no toruture has
occured. Any discussion of "torture" is amateur speculation.
The Geneva convention also states that if a
non-signatory does not adhere to the convention then
neither side is bound by the conventions.
Since Al Qaeda is not a nation they don't qualify. [SCOTUS disagrees.]
Since even if they were a nation, they don't obey the conventions,
the conventions don't apply. [SCOTUS is silent]
Finally, if waterboarding is determined to be toture, then confinement
must also be considered, along with being held in a foreigh land, and
life in prison. Which of the following is torture:
a) Life in Prison
b) Solitary confinement for life
c) execution
d) Waterboarding
Explain your reasoning.
This is not about the law and the rule of law. For Judge Napolitano, it's about selling a book. For the remainder of people who go this route, it is about Bush hating.
Finally, when the public heard about waterboarding in the 2003-2004
timeframe there was no uproar. Why didn't Judge Napolitano and Nancy Pelosi and all the Bush haters say something then?
The Bush Administration twisted the definition of torture. That's the only way they were able to say that what they were doing wasn't torture.
It was torture. Waterboarding is torture. Some other things US interrogators did was torture. About 100 suspected terrorists died - doing painful, horrific stuff to people until they die in an effort to extract information from them is torture.
The Geneva Convention does not 'allow' us to torture people if we are dealing with people who are not signatories to the rules therein. The rules delineate what we can do. It doesn't matter if someone else follows those rules or not. We are a signatory, and so we are bound by those rules to not torture.
Detaining someone in a safe, humane environment is not torture. Some of the things the French used to do (see the movie Papillion, for example) to their convicts were torture, and have been stopped by all free societies. Executing someone convicted of a very serious crime in a quick manner is not torture.
This is about the history of the USA, and the fact that we aren't supposed to torture other humans. Nancy Pelosi was getting classified briefings so she couldn't say anything, but many Democrats and liberals were aghast at the stuff we heard was happening to suspected terrorists, and we said so at the time. Jane Harman objected strenuously to what she learned was going on.
It has nothing to do with hating Bush. We understand that hating Dems in power is something that you do, and so you assume that we behave in the same way. But we're better than you on the right are. We don't hate someone out of partisan rancor. We hate the stuff that the Bush Administration did, just like we would have hated it no matter who had done it. You, on the other hand, will give your buddies passes on almost any behavior, yet you'll believe the worst, usually wtihout any reason to do so, about even the lowliest of Democrats!
Actually, I think some of them did... they were just shouted down as "traitors" or "terrorist sympathizers" by the Jingofascists who were running the country at the time.
It took a lot of courage to speak out against the prevailing madness in that environment. Unfortunately, most of our politicians and journalists came up short.
Remember "Freedom Fries"? I rest my case.
Take a look at my street placard on him that I used during my unsuccessful 2004 Snowe-Removal campaign here in Portland, and the handout -- a transcript of a section of a CSPAN clip he was part of in the Senate Democratic Policy Committee. The link to the portion of the CSPAN coverage is still working, which you can click to watch on the transcript.
A CIA inspector general's report issued in 2004 was more critical of the agency's use of sleep deprivation than it was of any other method besides waterboarding, according to officials familiar with the document, because of how the technique was applied.
The prisoners had their feet shackled to the floor and their hands cuffed close to their chins, according to the Justice Department memos.
Detainees were clad only in diapers and not allowed to feed themselves. A prisoner who started to drift off to sleep would tilt over and be caught by his chains....
When detainees could no longer stand, they could be laid on the prison floor with their limbs "anchored to a far point on the floor in such a manner that the arms cannot be bent or used for balance or comfort," a May 10, 2005, memo said.
"The position is sufficiently uncomfortable to detainees to deprive them of unbroken sleep, while allowing their lower limbs to recover from the effects of standing," it said.
I certainly hope that the Democrats have the guts to call the Republicans' bluff, but I'm not holding my breath.
the republicans constantly want to divert the real subject and who the main culprits in this torture debate are. they just need to find a way to blame the democrats.
FALSE...according to the Politifacts judgment.
Additionally from Politifacts:
-- Let me be clear...The chairs and the ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, known as the Gang of Four (including Pelosi), were briefed that the CIA was holding and interrogating high-value terrorists; we understood what the CIA was doing; we gave the CIA our bipartisan support; we gave the CIA funding to carry out its activities. -- Peter Goss, former congressman/director of CIA