About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Media let GOP change the subject in torture debate

May 09, 2009 6:05 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

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.

46 Comments

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.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by loonz (May 09, 2009 7:23 pm ET)
      4  
      Instead of focusing on the criminals who painstakingly tried to find ways around torture statutes (instead of just following the law) and those who ordered torture, we're debating whether or not Pelosi is a liar. Why does the MSM always seem to jump on any republican frame that bashes Democrats?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (May 09, 2009 9:05 pm ET)
        2  
        "Why does the MSM always seem to jump on any republican frame that bashes Democrats?"

        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.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (May 09, 2009 9:11 pm ET)
             
          Protoss from Starcraft?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by steeve (May 10, 2009 1:47 am ET)
          2  
          *gag* no, a ratings-driven media would side with the voters once in a while. And a corporate media wouldn't spend much time propping up people who trash the economy.

          The media is two scoops of bias and two scoops of stupid.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by snoopy (May 09, 2009 8:44 pm ET)
      4  
      Why wouldn't the media let the GOP change the debate? Instead of coming up with fresh ideas and solutions to problems the GOP spent the last 30 years buying the media and selling the idea that marketing dollars by corporations equates to voters wishes. The GOP are always saying democrats use tax dollars to buy votes. The GOP uses advertising to buy them. With dems, you know you're getting something in return for your investment. With republicans, you know they are getting something in return for your investment. Given those choices, I choose me.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by LuvLuLu (May 09, 2009 9:20 pm ET)
      3  
      As I said on another thread, this is all about the efforts by those on the right to claim that what happened wasn't torture.

      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.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (May 09, 2009 9:51 pm ET)
        2  
        I think it's just a little bit more than that. They are trying to scare democrats by saying they can drag down democratic leaders with them if this proceeds. They are playing chicken with the american public. Problem for them is, I ain't blinking.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by fawltylogic (May 09, 2009 10:47 pm ET)
          2  
          Me neither, and I don't think a lot of liberals and/or Democrats do. Most of us have little love for Democratic politicians - certainly not the perverse allegiance to them that some Republicans are showing to the previous White House administration.

          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.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by phredicles (May 10, 2009 12:31 am ET)
            4  
            If the price of bringing the people who made waterboarding a household word to justice is throwing Nancy "Impeachment of a lovely man like Bush is off the table" Pelosi under the bus, I am completely okay with that.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by nerzog (May 11, 2009 9:22 am ET)
              1  
              I'm inclined to agree. I have no dislike for Pelosi, but the Democrats should call this bluff. At worst, Pelosi might have to resign. Some of the Republitoads are looking at prison time.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by jfitguru (May 12, 2009 12:56 pm ET)
                  1
                Define Torture..

                do you have the same intensity with beheadings, so called "honor killings" or how about the killing of Homosexuals in Iran.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by solon (May 12, 2009 5:53 pm ET)
                  1  
                  Defining torture has been done. Check out the Convention against torture statute yourself. Yeah. I am just as much against honor killings beheadings and killing of homosexuals in Iran and everywhere else. Do you know someone who isnt? Did you think that made some POINT? Is the elementary moral principle that we are MOST responsible for what WE do escaping you somehow? See I dont buy the argument that we have joined the evil doers club but at least we arent as bad as...whoever.
                  Report Abuse
        • Author by LuvLuLu (May 10, 2009 12:06 am ET)
          2  
          If Pelosi gets in trouble for ignoring torture, then all the Republicans get in trouble for torture too. I don't believe that's their aim.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by snoopy (May 10, 2009 1:05 am ET)
            2  
            They are hoping we blink. Or more accurately, they are hoping those in power blink.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by steeve (May 10, 2009 1:42 am ET)
      2  
      Hey, I know. Let's have a full investigation followed by prosecution. Then we'll find out what Pelosi did and knew and when she did and knew it.

      And Bush, and Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, ...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jeter2 (May 10, 2009 8:15 am ET)
        3 2
        No doubt the focus has changed to Pelosi & what she knew & when she knew it. The focus of the investigation should be on the entire motley crew, Congress & the Bush administration. Sadly the media apparently has a difficult time doing two things at once. Not unlike Congress, btw. And knowing this, I'd prefer Congress focus on the economy first. Then get onto this issue.

        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 ;-)
        Report Abuse
        • Author by juliajayne (May 10, 2009 11:38 am ET)
          6  
          Jeter, my lamb ;-),

          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.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by worrierking (May 10, 2009 5:44 pm ET)
          3  
          Not trying to be a smart ass (for a change) but we're all guilty of not holding them accountable. Too many of us had a pretty good idea of what was going on and too many of us were willing to look the other way.

          And I'm glad to see you back. I thought you'd given up on us.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by juliajayne (May 10, 2009 8:14 pm ET)
               
            WK, Sir Jeter secretly loves all moonbats, some more than others of course. ;-) But make no mistake, he is still an intransigent reprobate deluxe, despite his boyish charm and movie star looks.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by worrierking (May 10, 2009 10:08 pm ET)
              1  
              I know what you mean. I know for a fact that he loves me, as I do him, but in a manly way.

              We're both secure enough in our own deep manliness to admit this.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (May 11, 2009 9:28 am ET)
             
          I think you have a point, Jeter.

          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.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by ProudPrimate (May 11, 2009 11:46 am ET)
               
            This dovetails into the top story at DemocracyNow! about Barstow's Pulitzer he got for outing all the TV networks, yes MSNBC at the top of the pile, Olbermann and Maddow notwithstanding (in a very real sense notwithstanding — or at least not reporting — maybe they'll cover it this week, but I'm not holding my breath) the importation of scumbag generals like Barry McCaffrey, fresh and sweaty from a Pentagon talking points session, on the board of a company with the Orwellian name of Veritas (!) which, well — here's the quote:

            And in September of 2001, an odd thing happened. Actually, the week before 9/11(hmmm...insider trading?), he was asked to join the advisory—defense advisory board of a major private equity firm in New York called Veritas Capital, which at that moment, just at that moment, was making plans to invest heavily into defense contractors. Nine-eleven happened. Weeks later, General McCaffrey was hired by NBC to be its—one of its military analysts.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by ProudPrimate (May 11, 2009 1:00 pm ET)
                 
              haven't been to your site for a while. Sorry for the "—" here and there. Perhaps a Character Entity such as — would work (it doesn't in the preview, but that tells me nothing because "—" previews as a perfect mdash, but fails in the browser). Otherwise, please mentally substitute "--"
              Report Abuse
            • Author by nerzog (May 11, 2009 1:18 pm ET)
                 
              I think that happened before Maddow's arrival, but it's another story that fell down the Cable TV memory hole, even though it won a pulitzer.

              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.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by ProudPrimate (May 11, 2009 4:54 pm ET)
                   
                "happened before Maddow's arrival"

                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?
                Report Abuse
    • Author by twseattle (May 10, 2009 4:37 am ET)
      2  
      Diddn't congress have to beg for these briefings in the first place? It's hard to believe that the Bushies gave complete info during these committee briefings like they did during the ones they had for republicans.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Jenn (May 10, 2009 3:55 pm ET)
         
      It is very important what Pelosi and other democratics knew about the CIA tactics. Our government is a check and balance system. The senate is in charge of investigation and impeaching the President. Now we find out the leader of the senate and many people who would be incharge of investigating the presidents administration were guity of the very same thing they accused Bush and his buddies. I don't belong to a political party and I voted for both parties in presidential elections in the past. I believe that both parties are liars and untrust worthy. I do however believe that the democratics are just as responsible as the bush adminstration. Our country blame everything on the president and fail to hold congress responsible. Our president has a term limit so but our congress doesn't. We need to start holding congress responsible for these thing too. If not more so since some have been in congress for 10 years or more. I don't believe what the CIA did were torture or out of line. We treated those men better then they treat their women in the middle east.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (May 11, 2009 2:04 pm ET)
           
        Actually they arent. They KNEW from a classified meeting the subject was CLASSIFIED. They couldnt talk about it in comittee they couldnt raise objections in Congress. They HAD to keep it secret BY LAW. So whatever objections they had and it WAS taken to the CIA and objected to, they couldnt make it public that is pretty far from being guilty of actually MAKING A POLICY oF TORTURE
        Report Abuse
    • Author by dadre (May 10, 2009 5:20 pm ET)
         
      This is like having a trial for a group of bank robbers that forced a hostage at gunpoint to be the getaway driver and bank robbers testifying that she is just as guilty as they are because she could have refused to drive.....though she would have been shot. Sadly the hostage would have still had more power than Pelosi because she would be in prison if she told classified information.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by egb (May 10, 2009 10:31 pm ET)
        4
      BUSH Haters Unite, Judge Napolitano Supports you

      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?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by LuvLuLu (May 11, 2009 12:17 am ET)
        1  
        Boy, I sure hope English isn't your first language, because your rant is almost indecipherable.

        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!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (May 11, 2009 9:37 am ET)
           
        Why didn't Judge Napolitano and Nancy Pelosi and all the Bush haters say something then?


        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.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by ProudPrimate (May 11, 2009 5:17 pm ET)
             
          To the credit of Congressman Walter Jones, creator of "Freedom Fries", as soon as he realized he had been lied to, he repudiated his stance, although he is in perhaps the most militarized district in the country.



          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.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by LuvLuLu (May 11, 2009 12:06 am ET)
         
      This is also torture.

      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.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by terrapin53 (May 11, 2009 10:23 am ET)
         
      DOJ needs to investigate, indict all who are found complicit in this torture. If that means Pelosi and others, then so be it. Have a trial and let a jury decide. Isn't that how things are supposed to work?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (May 11, 2009 10:46 am ET)
           
        I agree. Unfortunately, few politicians are that courageous. Working for Congress has evolved into a cushy career, with great benefits. Not many are willing to give it up for principle.

        I certainly hope that the Democrats have the guts to call the Republicans' bluff, but I'm not holding my breath.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by teabaggers ♥ [wing]NUTS (May 11, 2009 6:58 pm ET)
         
      pelosi should be the first one briefed?! what about the BUSH ADMINISTRATION??? they ALLOWED torture to happen.

      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.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wesley (May 12, 2009 3:13 pm ET)
         
      -- We were not, I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used. -- Nancy Pelosi

      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
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.