Pelosi was particularly harsh in describing the CIA

[WhoWee]

Nancy Pelosi is very critical of the CIA. These are her comments:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_pelosi_torture

"Pelosi was particularly harsh in describing the CIA.

Particularly..."On Thursday, Pelosi accused the CIA of having lied"

"They mislead us all the time," she said. And when a reporter asked whether the agency had lied, Pelosi said yes.

She also suggested that the current Republican criticism marked an attempt to divert attention from the Bush administration's actions.

"They misrepresented every step of the way, and they don't want that focus on them, so they try to turn the attention on us," she said. "

These are very serious allegations from the Speaker/senior Democrat on the Intelligence Committee,

It is clearly time for an investigation of these alleged lies by the CIA, I think the Speaker should be required to bring charges (it is her duty)...to force testimony under oath by everyone involved...under penalty of perjury.

 

[Cyrus]

I would agree to that.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...if it is possible. Recall that often they [Congressional members] weren't allowed to have any documented evidence of what was said.

What has really caught my attention lately is Cheney. He is acting like a man who is trying to cover his butt.

Then came this little exchange
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2197937#post2197937

 

[Cyrus]

I reaad your post Ivan, but I don't see the point your making. Cheney correctly said that the president had to sign off on it.

 

[Chi Meson]

Take this to the politics subforum, please. I come here to escape partisanship!

 

[humanino]

I come here to escape partisanship!

Although it is politics, I do not think the partisanship aspect is very relevant.

 

[LowlyPion]

There is also this from a couple of days ago.:

Former Sen. Bob Graham (Fla.), who was the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence panel in September 2002, told The Washington Post on Monday he was not told about waterboarding during a briefing he received around the same time Pelosi received hers.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/hoekstra-calls-for-cia-documents-to-be-declassified-2009-05-11.html

Graham denied being told about EITs, and argued that the presence of two staff members at the meeting (as indicated in the records) would have made it “highly unusual” for the briefers to divulge such sensitive info. “I don’t recall having had one of those kinds of briefings with staff present,” he said. “That would defeat the purpose of keeping a tight hold” on the info.

Graham, however, was circumspect on what was actually discussed, saying only that “the general topic had to do with detainee interrogations” but didn’t include any reference to EITs or waterboarding.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/bob-graham-i-wasnt-told-about-waterboarding-or-eits-in-my-briefing/

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I reaad your post Ivan, but I don't see the point your making. Cheney correctly said that the president had to sign off on it.

He was not willing to state as a matter of fact that Bush knew what he knew. Based on Cheney's obfuscation, it sounds to me like Bush may have signed off on something that did not give the specifics of what was being done. When we ask if the President knew that we were torturing people, or if he specifically approved these techniques, we deserve a clear answer - yes, or no.

For the first time, I am beginning to wonder if Bush may really be innocent in all of this. On the other hand, Cheney could be trying to protect Bush, but that doesn't seem likely.

 

[Cyrus]

He was not willing to state as a matter of fact that Bush knew what he knew. Based on Cheney's obfuscation, it sounds to me like Bush signed off on something that did not give the specifics of what was being done.

For the first time, I am beginning to wonder if Bush may really be innocent in all of this. On the other hand, Cheney could be trying to protect Bush, but that doesn't seem likely.

No.

SCHIEFFER: How much did President Bush know specifically about the methods that were being used? We know that you-- and you have said-- that you approved this...

SCHIEFFER: ... somewhere down the line. Did President Bush know everything you knew?

CHENEY: I certainly, yes, have every reason to believe he knew -- he knew a great deal about the program. He basically authorized it. I mean, this was a presidential-level decision. And the decision went to the president. He signed off on it...

seems pretty clear to me he pinned it exactly on bush.

 

[mheslep]

Take this to the politics subforum, please. I come here to escape partisanship!

2nd that

 

[LowlyPion]

2nd that

That's fine with me. I third it.

There was a topic in politics on this that got locked for some reason - apparently prematurely, since it seems to be escalating into a broader fire storm sorting out what the CIA would have told congress.

 

[WhoWee]

Forget "waterboarding and Bush and politics in general for a minute. The topic of this post is this this statement by the Speaker of the House...

"They mislead us all the time," she said. And when a reporter asked whether the agency had lied, Pelosi said yes.

The CIA (EVERY government agency) needs to be held accountable to tell the truth to Congress...no exceptions.

 

[WhoWee]

Take this to the politics subforum, please. I come here to escape partisanship!

I agree...how do we do that?

 

[LowlyPion]

I agree...how do we do that?

There's the obvious solution of not starting it here in the first place.

With that bell run, report your first post and ask it to be moved may work.

 

[WhoWee]

Thank you Astronuc...for moving our thread.

 

[WhoWee]

Nancy Pelosi is 2 heartbeats away from the Presidency of the United States and a senior member of the House Intelligence Committee. We have no choice but to give her the benefit of the doubt.

She has accused officials of the CIA of misleading Congress "all the time"...and at a time of war. She said the CIA lied to Congress. This is a very serious charge and clearly a crime.

I'm not a lawyer, but at a minimum, this should be considered Contempt of Congress.
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Contempt_of_Congress

I believe an independent prosecutor should be appointed to investigate the specific lies alleged by the Speaker...not a witch hunt about torture. Anyone who lies to Congress needs to be prosecuted...PERIOD!

This is not a partisan issue. The CIA is not Republican or Democratic...it serves the United States. It is time for testimony under oath.

 

[LowlyPion]

The plot thickens. Is this why Cheney has been so out front these days?

*Two U.S. intelligence officers confirm that Vice President Cheney’s office suggested waterboarding an Iraqi prisoner, a former intelligence official for Saddam Hussein, who was suspected to have knowledge of a Saddam-al Qaeda connection.

*The former chief of the Iraq Survey Group, Charles Duelfer, in charge of interrogations, tells The Daily Beast that he considered the request reprehensible.

*Much of the information in the report of the 9/11 Commission was provided through more than 30 sessions of torture of detainees.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-13/cheneys-role-deepens/

Was there a shadow operation going on with Cheney and the CIA going off the reservation, even to the point of offering Congress the opportunity to be misled? According to the time line these waterboardings would have been in 2003 apparently. Maybe after all the Nation will need to reach into the Executive Branch to see where all this disregard for the Law was coming from?

 

[WhoWee]

Right now, the Speaker of the House has made specific charges against specific members of the CIA regarding specific acts. These specific charges need to be prosecuted.

 

[LowlyPion]

Right now, the Speaker of the House has made specific charges against specific members of the CIA regarding specific acts. These specific charges need to be prosecuted.

At this point I don't see it stopping at what was said or not said at the September 4, 2002 briefing. This looks to have taken on a life of its own. I suspect that a broader charter will be explored. At this point I think the Republicans and Bush-Cheney-Rove can look to thank only themselves for their attempts at molding history.

 

[turbo]

Bob Graham denies being briefed on waterboarding

If you're interested in the issue, please listen to this radio interview until at least 10:30 or so into the interview. The CIA had claimed that Senator Bob Graham had been briefed 4 times on harsh interrogation techniques. After referring to his schedules and his ever-present spiral notebooks, he told the CIA that they were in error and he had only been briefed once. The CIA agreed that their records were in error and that he had been briefed once. Furthermore, Sen Graham claims that waterboarding and "enhanced interrogation techniques" were not discussed in the briefing. This is supported by his claim that two staffers were allowed to attend the briefing, which was never allowed when the CIA wanted to brief the "gang of eight" on covert operations. When briefings on covert operations are conducted, Congressional leaders and the ranking members of the intelligence committees are summoned on short notice, and are not allowed to discuss the briefing with any other person who was not in the room during the briefing. Graham was a conservative Democrat who (having been briefed on the fluffed-up intelligence leading to the invasion of Iraq) refused to support the Iraq war and urged his colleagues to follow suit.

http://www.wnyc.org/flashplayer/player.html#/play/%2Fstream%2Fxspf%2F131835

 

[LowlyPion]

Can the CIA be trusted over treatment of detainees? Don't ask the British for a character reference:

CIA misled Britain over rendition plan

The CIA misled British intelligence chiefs over the arrest and treatment of terrorist suspects who were the subjects of rendition to Guantanamo Bay, an Intelligence and Security Committee report to the Prime Minister warned.

It said the deception threatens to undermine confidence in the exchange of intelligence between the CIA and MI6.

Coming only days before the Prime Minister flies to Washington for a summit with President George Bush, the report could prove embarrassing for Gordon Brown. However, he brushed aside the committee's criticism of the US over rendition. "Where people are at risk of being tortured we have made very clear about our rejection of such a policy... But I am not going to condemn the US authorities," he said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cia-misled-britain-over-rendition-plan-458756.html

 

[WhoWee]

Can the CIA be trusted over treatment of detainees? Don't ask the British for a character reference:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cia-misled-britain-over-rendition-plan-458756.html

Again LP... I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think misleading the MI5 is a crime (in the US anyway)? However, telling lies to Congress is a crime...and it needs to be prosecuted.

The Justice Department can't pick and choose which crimes are relevant.

Everyone citizen who is caught (with direct evidence) speeding/running a red light/shoplifting/vandalism faces prosecution. If the Speaker or Senator Graham have direct evidence that the CIA lied...they need to be called to testify and the guilty parties need to be prosecuted and removed from public service...forever.

 

[Astronuc]

I merged turbo's thread "Bob Graham denies being briefed on waterboarding" into this thread, since it's basically the same issue.


Please keep the discussion civil.

Please be clear about expressing opinion vs asserting facts, and claims must be supported by evidence.

Apparently Pelosi and Graham claim they were not informed on some or all of the "harsh interrogation techniques, and specifically about water-boarding.

People were at several different meetings, although some may have attended the same meeting, but those of us on the outside just don't know, and probably won't.

There does seem to be a partisan divide, but let's keep that in Washington, please.

 

[LowlyPion]

... but I don't think misleading the MI5 is a crime (in the US anyway)?

Not suggesting that it is.

But maybe there is a culture of deception inherent in the operation of the CIA? And where once others were so ready to believe that Pelosi would have lied, maybe the CIA should be the first suspect when it comes to weighing accounts of events?

 

[turbo]

Apparently Pelosi and Graham claim they were not informed on some or all of the "harsh interrogation techniques, and specifically about water-boarding.

People were at several different meetings, although some may have attended the same meeting, but those of us on the outside just don't know, and probably won't.

Graham cannot vouch for Pelosi's claims, because House and Senate leaders were briefed separately, weeks apart. His recollection of the briefing seems to mirror Pelosi's, though.

 

[LowlyPion]

Hoekstra: Pelosi knew about waterboarding
By Ed Brayton 5/11/09 1:50 AM

Rep. Pete Hoekstra, a Republican candidate for governor and former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, says he has seen firsthand the same intelligence briefings given to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and that it included specific information about the use of waterboarding and other forms of torture and abuse used on terror detainees.

http://michiganmessenger.com/18749/hoekstra-pelosi-knew-about-waterboarding

Of course Hoekstra can't begin to think that the CIA might not have disclosed to Pelosi what he was told at a later date? And of course there is no chance that the CIA would think to mislead?

Oh wait ... This would be the same Pete Hoekstra wouldn't it?

Report: CIA lied about shoot-down in Peru

... “Violations of required procedures occurred in every shoot-down the CIA took part in” for the six years of the CIA’s Airbridge Denial Program with Peru, said Hoekstra, who read unclassified portions of the report to journalists. The number of shoot-downs was not made public.

...“This is as ugly as it gets: an agency operating outside of the law, covering it up and getting away with it as long as they did,” said Hoekstra.

http://www.ajc.com/printedition/content/printedition/2008/11/21/shootdown.html

 

[mgb_phys]

Again LP... I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think misleading the MI5 is a crime (in the US anyway)? However, telling lies to Congress is a crime...and it needs to be prosecuted.

I don't think they misled MI5, I suspect it was a case of the MI5 being told what they wanted to be told so that they could claim to have known nothing.

MI5 are in trouble in an inquiry at the moment. Although they do not 'use or condone torture', it's apparently OK for them to be asking the questions while the Pakistani security service apply the electrodes.

 

[russ_watters]

It is clearly time for an investigation of these alleged lies by the CIA, I think the Speaker should be required to bring charges (it is her duty)...to force testimony under oath by everyone involved...under penalty of perjury.

Agreed. But we all know why they won't really press for that, don't we? Even if it can't be proven (to a legally required standard) that Pelosi (and others) knew before she says she (they) knew, this will continue to damage her (them) politically. The democrats caught in this are going to huff and puff for a while, but when it comes down to it, they aren't going to pursue a real investigation because it can only hurt them politically.

 

[WhoWee]

This is a very simple matter, regarding a very serious crime, and needs to be prosecuted.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7586530&page=1
The Speaker has alleged that a specific crime has been committed, by specific persons, to which she is a witness.

This is a cut and dry case...charges should be filed, followed by an arraignment, a trial date set and plea bargaining should commence. There is a bird in hand. Prosecute the case and move forward.

 

[turbo]

This is a very simple matter, regarding a very serious crime, and needs to be prosecuted.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7586530&page=1
The Speaker has alleged that a specific crime has been committed, by specific persons, to which she is a witness.

This is a cut and dry case...charges should be filed, followed by an arraignment, a trial date set and plea bargaining should commence. There is a bird in hand. Prosecute the case and move forward.

One little problem with the case. Nobody but the CIA (if they even kept transcripts) has contemporaneous records of the briefings, and if they existed, they are likely destroyed, like the video-recordings of the torture sessions were. Pelosi, Graham, and the others who got a briefing (single, despite the loose claims of the GOP noise-machine) could not legally even discuss the subject-matter of the briefings with anybody who was not a participant in the briefing, leaving the people conducting the briefings free to claim anything after the fact. How can you make a legal case purely on hearsay evidence? Not going to happen.

The CIA has released inaccurate information regarding Bob Graham's briefing (only one occurred, and there were aides present, so it was not a top-level covert briefing in which covert programs could be disclosed, despite the fact that the CIA claimed to have briefed him multiple times). Graham's description of his briefing is quite consistent with Pelosi's description of her briefing. The burden of proof is on the CIA, and their track record for honesty is not too good.

 

[LowlyPion]

One good thing is that Leon Panetta is top gun at the CIA. The tendency to cover-up will be pushed to a lower level at least. This may improve the chance that the agency will have people that care more about the Truth than loyalty to the likes of Cheney and Rove and Tenet.

With Cheney apparently politically impotent and virtually a pariah to his own party, and Rove scurrying to seek his own cover, over different matters, it seems their ability to control the story, whatever it may be, will likely only continue to erode as more and more becomes known.

My feeling once was that the country had better things to do than worrying about these old men whose candle wicks were guttering out, but the more I hear them smugly try to re-write history and paint the past in their colors, with their strokes, the more I think it is beneficial that the Nation get to the bottom of whatever illegal activity there may have been as regards torture and manufacturing evidence to sell an ill-advised war, and if warranted, prosecute them, if they were acting Nixon-like and thinking they were above the Law. If there is nothing there, then history can be satisfied, and the principle will be affirmed that not even the powerful elite can expect to avoid a reckoning of their past actions.

 

[WhoWee]

One good thing is that Leon Panetta is top gun at the CIA. The tendency to cover-up will be pushed to a lower level at least. This may improve the chance that the agency will have people that care more about the Truth than loyalty to the likes of Cheney and Rove and Tenet.

With Cheney apparently politically impotent and virtually a pariah to his own party, and Rove scurrying to seek his own cover, over different matters, it seems their ability to control the story, whatever it may be, will likely only continue to erode as more and more becomes known.

My feeling once was that the country had better things to do than worrying about these old men whose candle wicks were guttering out, but the more I hear them smugly try to re-write history and paint the past in their colors, with their strokes, the more I think it is beneficial that the Nation get to the bottom of whatever illegal activity there may have been as regards torture and manufacturing evidence to sell an ill-advised war, and if warranted, prosecute them, if they were acting Nixon-like and thinking they were above the Law. If there is nothing there, then history can be satisfied, and the principle will be affirmed that not even the powerful elite can expect to avoid a reckoning of their past actions.

I agree that Leon Panetta is a good man. It appears he is prepared to defend his people...and his agency.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124239332960723299.html
"By SIOBHAN GORMAN

Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon Panetta defended his agency Friday against charges from congressional Democrats that the agency misled lawmakers in a 2002 briefing on interrogations.

"CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah," Mr. Panetta wrote in a memo to agency employees referring to an alleged senior al Qaeda detainee in CIA custody at the time. "It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values."

He was responding to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's charges on Thursday that CIA officials was "misleading" her at the Sept. 4, 2002 briefing."

 

[LowlyPion]

I agree that Leon Panetta is a good man. It appears he is prepared to defend his people...and his agency.

It seems there is a lot for Panetta to defend. Maybe what we have here is a convenient failure to actually communicate? As you may note it's happened before. At least with Panetta we can expect that if there was a nuanced failure to fully disclose it will come to light.

C.I.A. Chief Cites Agency Lapse on Tapes
By MARK MAZZETTI
Published: December 13, 2007
WASHINGTON — Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, acknowledged on Wednesday that the C.I.A. had failed to keep members of Congress fully informed that the agency had videotaped the interrogations of suspected operatives of Al Qaeda and destroyed the tapes three years later.

General Hayden’s comments struck a different tone from a message he sent to C.I.A. employees last Thursday, when he said that Congressional leaders had been informed about the tapes and of the “agency’s intention to dispose of the material.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/13/washington/13intel.html

 

[LowlyPion]

As a general observation, Pelosi apparently wasn't far wrong in noting that the CIA has been misleading in the past. The plane shootings in Peru and the tape burnings of interrogations, both appear not to have properly been conveyed to Congress, regardless of the situation with how the EITs were presented and communicated.

 

[WhoWee]

It seems there is a lot for Panetta to defend. Maybe what we have here is a convenient failure to actually communicate? As you may note it's happened before. At least with Panetta we can expect that if there was a nuanced failure to fully disclose it will come to light.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/13/washington/13intel.html

The major criticism of Panetta when he was appointed was his lack of intelligence experience. I don't think anyone was worried about his character...this is a good thing and why I consider him a good man. He is also an experienced manager, another good thing.

I agree that Panetta will keep on the straight and narrow with the truth. On the other hand, I don't believe he will go out of his way to dig up incriminating evidence on any former officials.