Reply With Quote
Good. I'm all for more transparency. Let's found out which Dems heard about this and said nothing as well.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22439.html
Democrats charged Tuesday that the CIA has released do ents about congressional briefings on harsh interrogation techniques in order to deflect attention and blame away from itself.
“I think there is so much embarrassment in some quarters [of the CIA] that people are going to try to shift some of the responsibility to others — that’s what I think,” said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee and was briefed on interrogation techniques five times between 2006 and 2007.
Illinois Sen. Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said he finds it “interesting” that a do ent detailing congressional briefings was released just as “some of the groups that have been responsible for these interrogation techniques were taking the most criticism.”
Asked whether the CIA was seeking political cover by releasing the do ents, Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said: “Sure it is.”
The CIA has long been on the receiving end of harsh rebukes from Congress — on intelligence failures leading up to the war in Iraq, on secret prisons abroad and on the harsh interrogation techniques used on terrorism suspects. But with the release of records showing that it briefed members of Congress along the way, the CIA has effectively put lawmakers on the defensive.
Intelligence officials insist it wasn’t intentional and have not taken responsibility for publicly releasing the do ents.
Asked for comment about the Democrats’ charges, CIA spokesman George Little said only that the CIA “understands the importance of a strong relationship with the Congress, which in our democracy, conducts oversight of secret intelligence activities.”
But another U.S. intelligence official went further, noting that the records of the congressional briefings were “prepared in response to a request from Congress.”
Intelligence Committee member Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) said it appears that “members of the committee or their staff were not in any way involved in [the release of the do ent]. It appears to come from the executive branch itself. ... I think it’s unbelievable.”
A top congressional official who has participated in the briefings added: “I think the agency wanted to get this out, quite frankly.”
The 10-page do ent, which was prepared after an April 20 request by Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), lists 40 instances in which the CIA briefed members of Congress between September 2002 and March 2009. But they provide a vague description of the briefings, giving just enough information to fuel claims that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other top officials have long known about waterboarding and other tactics but did little to stop the techniques from being used.
The do ent came with a disclaimer from CIA Director Leon Panetta, who said that some of the descriptions of briefings “may not be accurate.” And it was leaked to the press just as Democrats were debating the idea of a sprawling investigation into the Bush administration’s interrogation techniques.
Questions about the CIA’s motives have added to bad feelings between the CIA and Democrats on the Hill and in the Obama administration. Panetta tried to limit the release of Justice Department memos authorizing harsh interrogation techniques, but he lost a struggle with the department, and the memos were released. CIA officials fear that release of the memos could subject them to lawsuits and hurt officers in the field.
The memos are to be the subject of a Senate hearing Wednesday.
Feinstein acknowledged Tuesday that su ions over the do ents aren’t helping the Hill’s relations with the agency. But she said that’s why her panel is conducting a classified investigation on torture in a “professional way” in seeking unredacted do ents, e-mails and cables. And she said that she will include language in an upcoming intelligence authorization bill that would expand classified briefings to the entire panel — rather than just the chairman and the ranking member — except in “exceptional cir stances.”
Still, she said that responsibility for the interrogation techniques the CIA used lie with the CIA.
“Look, the CIA has the responsibility — there’s no question about that,” Feinstein said. “Because you brief or notify doesn’t mean there’s any less responsibility of the CIA, any less the responsibility of the individual who participates in this — in my opinion.”
But Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the longest-serving member of the Intelligence Committee, said that if Pelosi or other Democrats objected to the interrogation techniques when they were briefed on them, they could have offered legislation — or withheld appropriations for the program.
“We’re not without power up here,” Hatch said. “Now, they can make a fuss on policy differences, but to try and besmirch the people who had these tough decisions to make during those trying times is really offensive to people like me.”
Asked if he felt the relevant lawmakers were kept informed of the interrogation tactics, Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, who was the top Republican on the Intelligence Committee, offered what he called “a strong, affirmative yes.”
Good. I'm all for more transparency. Let's found out which Dems heard about this and said nothing as well.
They should have CYA when it comes to the CIA.
Let's find out what EVERYONE knew.
I just hope it doesn't distract the powers that be from drafting legislation to outlaw torture practices from interrogations.
That was already there.
Why would the CIA be touchy about its rep? Anyone?
Working for the CIA must suck. On the one hand, politicians (think Bush administration) expect them to push the envelope on the legality of their actions, and attack them when they push back on being told to do things that are blatantly evil and/or stupid.
Then there's another set of politicians (Congressional Democrats) that supposedly opposes the evil/stupid activities, but whose opposition is totally for show, as demonstrated when the CIA told them what they were being told to do and said politicians did nothing about it.
So now when the light of day is being shone on those activities, and the cowardice of the Democrats is on display, the Democrats extend their cowardice by throwing the CIA under the bus.
I totally agree with Orrin Hatch here. Feinstein, Feingold, Levin, the reason you didn't make a stink in 2003 was because your sense of right and wrong is a subjective thing based mostly on what last week's polls say.
Meh, the CIA is going to do what they need to do and if anyone thinks torture or harsh interrogations techniques are going to totally stop they are, IMO, sadly mistaken.
I agree.
And for the record I think, I know, Pelosi is lying and she knew about the water boarding and said nothing. McCain spoke out against it and she should have too.
Torture is clearly illegal. The question is whether or not waterboarding in the way it was done cons uted torture.
The legal opinion at the time was that it doesn't.
I agree also that it doesn't. It was not the same intensity and style the Japanese used.
yes, the lawyers were specifically cherry picked to draw that conclusion.
I agree also that it doesn't. It was not the same intensity and style the Japanese used.
CIA is out to get the Democrats. GOD! How ing LAME.The Dems are scared because they have said alot of stupid and are scared that some of the lies will come back to haunt them especially Pelosi.
Do you think if we waterboarded Cheney he'd tell the truth?
There is plenty of blame to go around including some scared as republicans. Pelosi knew and said nothing.
Thank you again, Extra Stout, for sanity and clarity in a response. +10x
Well done.
Agree 100%.
I didn't hear many republicans making a stink about it either, except McCain. I agree..but not 100%.
"Torture has never been a reliable means of extracting information. It is ultimately self-defeating as a means of control. One wonders why it is still practiced." - JLP
He was a fictional character going through torture himself, but the sentiment holds true: If you want to torture to extract information, you are ultimately self defeating when it comes to getting reliable information, versus getting 'the information you want to hear'.
I have a feeling the administration was looking more towards a 'punishment' against those who may have been responsible for the 9-11 attacks. You could certainly argue that it is justified, while certainly illegal, but to say you are doing it for intelligence, is utterly dumb.
It appears, from what I have been reading, is that the information was there to be had, nobody got around to acting on it. The CIA itself needed more resources and perhaps more motivation to go through intelligence.
I think Cheney just wanted to torture people because he's a big meanie.
LOL...
Sound good to me. After all, he shot a friend of his!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
