Congressional Republicans on Friday accused Democrats of full complicity in the approval of the Bush administration’s brutal interrogations, citing a new accounting that shows frequent briefings for some top Democrats on waterboarding and other harsh methods starting in 2002.
The new chart of briefings, prepared by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the first full listing of briefings, appears to call into question the assertion of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that she was never told that waterboarding and other methods were used, only that the Central Intelligence Agency believed they were legal and could be used.
The chart says that at the first briefing, on Sept. 4, 2002, Ms. Pelosi, then the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, and Representative Porter J. Goss, then the committee’s Republican chairman, were given a “description” of the interrogation methods that “had been employed” against a prisoner, Abu Zubaydah.
On Friday, the speaker issued a statement challenging the possible discrepancy. “Of the 40 C.I.A. briefings to Congress reported recently in the press, I was only briefed once, on September 4, 2002, as I have previously stated.” She said she was ‘briefed on interrogation techniques the administration was considering using in the future” and that the techniques were determined to be legal.
She also noted that Leon Panetta, the director of the C.I.A., had warned lawmakers that the descriptions of briefings provided in the new report “may not be accurate.”
Republicans also unveiled legislation aimed at curbing any attempt to move prisoners from the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, prison to the United States as part of President Obama’s order to close the Cuban detention center by early next year. The name of the bill, the Keep Terrorists Out of America Act, succinctly explained the Republican line of attack.
Since President Obama released Bush administration legal memorandums describing brutal interrogation techniques last month, some Democrats have accused the former Justice Department lawyers who wrote the memos of approving torture and President Obama has not ruled out possible criminal charges against them, though he has said there will be no prosecution of C.I.A. interrogators who were told their actions were legal.
Now Republicans are mounting an aggressive pushback on several fronts: highlighting evidence that at least some Democrats in Congress failed to speak out against the harsh methods; accusing the Obama administration of endangering Americans by emptying Guantanamo; and even asserting that the counterterrorism policies of President Bill Clinton violated human rights.
Republicans have been pressing for more disclosure by Ms. Pelosi for weeks, seeing it as a way to try to keep her on the defensive while also bolstering their claim that the interrogation techniques were fully disclosed to lawmakers. The issue also has repercussions for the speaker among liberal activists who want to know why she did not do more to oppose and disclose the methods if she knew about them.
Democrats say the new information on the briefings supports the speaker’s contention that she was briefed just once and that the specific term waterboarding is not mentioned as part of the subject matter in that session while it is identified as part of briefings attended by others. However, the new report states that Ms. Pelosi was briefed on Sept. 4, 2002, on enhanced interrogation techniques “that had been employed” in contrast with her position that she was not told that any enhanced techniques were being used.
From 1 to 25 of 117 Comments
The statements the republicans are using seem very contradictory. Blaming the democrats for not speaking out, but also gettting angry at them for closing down the site where many of these abuses happened? I’m not sure I understand their points.
Still, if Pelosi was subject to the details of waterboarding, she is as guilty as anyone in the previous administration of crimes against humanity. It will be dissapointing if this is the case.
— Mike D.Human rights are not a matter of political ideology or gamesmanship. If Democrats were aware of the torture being perpetrated by US agents, so what? That makes it okay? Appoint an independent prosecutor and let the chips fall where they may.
— JRB, Portland, OregonEvery other day it seems there is a story about Nancy Pelosi potentially lying.
So for the first time in a very long time the Republicans may actually be on to something.
— AaronMike D, with all due respect ,our politicians fropm both sides of the aisle know a lot more than they would ever admit too. My late father who was a WW II vet would tell me “there are things our Government has done that you wouldn’t want to know about.”
— EWTWell, they’re right, aren’t they? Democrats are to blame for greenlighting just about everything Bush wanted, because they’re afraid of looking partisan and divisive, rather than at the bottom line which is Men and Women are Going to Die from this war, Citizens are going to be Screwed because of Deregulation; Roberts and Alito approved to sit on Supreme Court; Big Corporations can Get Away with Tax Loopholes. In the end, the Dems fear of being seen as soft, rather than taking a genuine leadership role, aided and abetted Bush to bring us to where we are. Thank you for letting me say this!
— DianeIf “briefings,” then that means the material is brief, and probably much redacted. And what proof is there that the briefings Pelosi received were exactly the same as those Goss and other GOP members received? Are they the same word for word? And if classified, then how could either Pelosi or Goss protest at the time? And if she protested, then would not the GOP do to her what they did to others who protested the actions of the CIA — label them unpatriotic, disloyal, weak on terrorism? To say she is as responsible as Goss, Yoo, et al. is also too much of a stretch since she was at the time in the very minority party, much silenced in every way by the majority GOP. Targeting Pelosi yet again shows how mean-spirited the Congressional GOP can be.
— Carolyn SmithPelosi has stretched her credulity way too far. This debate is far more about politics than “torture,” and it always has been. If one reads carefully what has been disclosed about the disclosures to Congress from 2002 on about this and the exagerated wiretapping issue, one sees amazingly craven hedging on the part of Democrats and deliberate obfuscation strictly for political purposes. I’m sorry the American people and most of the media fall for it.
We got what we deserved with Bush, and if we allow the Democrats to spend their energies persecuting policies of the past in order to distract from the trillion-dollar tax & spend ideas of the past, then we get what we deserve all over again. The Democrats may well be allowed to get away with screaming, “Bush! Cheney! Halliburton! AIG!” for the next four years whenever they are questioned about anything at all. But when I was in third grade, I learned that two wrongs don’t make a right. And Congress now has a president who will sign a bill outlawing waterboarding. Let’s see the Congress pass it. But, no pun intended, I’m not holding my breath for it.
— BillSo what if the Democrats were complicit? This isn’t about Democrats and Republicans. It’s about restoring our country’s respect for human rights and the rule of law.
— WellsWhat does it say about the House Democrats that their leader is so dishonest?
— bobIsn’t it the case that congress members are not allowed to take notes at these meetings? If so, this is just going to descend into a “he said, she said” argument where nobody can actually demonstrate what happened at the meeting. If there are actual meeting minutes, approved by the participants at the following meeting, then let someone with the proper clearance sort this out. Otherwise, this is just another of the constant distractions which congress members of both parties delight in waving in our faces.
— Chris in WAI would like to make a simple suggestion. Let us appoint two (2) special prosecutors, one selected by the GOP members in Congress; the other selected by the Democratic members of Congress. Their charge would be to thoroughly investigate all aspects of terror and if any criminal conduct is found, to bring appropriate charges. Of course, the Democratic selected prosecutor would only focus on Republican crime committers; the Republican prosecutor on Domocratic crime committers.
— Paul RichardsonNow you realize why Obama wants to avoid this issue: unlike Pelosi, Leahy et al., he is able to see enough moves ahead that Democrats knew all about this and will be embarrassed by all of the revelations.
— JimA special investigator should be able to determine what Pelosi (and everyone else) knew. Let’s hope this encourages more Republicans to call for an independent prosecutor to look into the issue….
— ByronSo Chris in WA, what happened to your love of the career professionals in the CIA or Justice Dept? You are now accusing them of lying as to what they briefed Pelosi about. It seems that there were three parties in the room: Goss, Pelosi and the briefers. Two parties agree as to the content and only Pelosi claims otherwise. Do you really believe that Pelosi’s completely self-serving explanation is the one that merits the most trust? If so, I have a great bridge you might be interested in…
Lastly, I’m sure that the career professionals are stoked and filled with pride that Panetta (a political hack with no intelligence experience whatsoever), their boss, is calling into question their honesty about the briefings. Why would a single CIA officer risk their life in the future defending our country with bosses who will stab them in the back in a moment’s notice for political expediency.
— David NYCWoW!! Those Republicans can’t get enough of pushback on every single item. Before you know it they’ll be claiming Pelosi started the whole thing!
— billNo doubt this explains why Pelosi always maintained that impeachment of Bush was not on the table.
She herself was compromised.
What a sick political system we have
— MikeThe moral pedestal that everyone’s trying to jump on is getting very crowded. Another example of what a sticky wicket all these investigations will turn into if pursued. Again, any US president is going to be extremely reluctant to go down a legal road that may end up at the door of an ex US president. As far as the Spanish courts, good luck trying to get into any US court.
I may not be as moralistic as many here claim to be, but I abhor violence against our fellow man. I’d like to ask a question to anyone here, did the Nuremberg trials stop or deter the horrors in North Korea, Burma, Uganda, Bosnia? The hallowed cry after the war, “Never Again.” I ask, for whom?
— Jack CohenI think we should water board Pelosi to se what she really knows.
— mike dIs ANYONE surprised that Nancy Pelosi has been caught lying? If so, I have some swamp land to sell you.
— Dan CuratoloThey all knew and approved, Dems thought they could cherry pick the intel to nail republicans and instead it blew up in their faces. Expect this issue to go away, unless Republicans really decide to make the democrats eat dirt on this.
— robrty verdiYes, let’s stop waterboarding our Guantanamo guests.
Instead, give them swimming trunks and let them swim back to Afghanistan.
— An Innocent BystanderCarolyn,
A briefing doesn’t mean that the content presented is in a brief form. I’ve had briefings go on for hours. Besides, one mention of water-boarding, whether in a 5-minute or multi-hour brief, should have been cause for objection.
What the latest stories mean is that House Speaker Pelosi was caught lying. I guess she though Panetta had her back. Too bad for her that Leon is an honest person. She should confess. I know her constituents will continue to support her. Speaker Pelosi needs to learn that the truth is the only thing that will end this story. Otherwise, the Chinese water torture of drip-drip-drip will continue and will deflect her efforts in the House, exactly what the Cantor and other Republicans want. After all, going after the Speaker is much easier than producing policy.
— JimNow you see why the Obama administraion has NO interest in prosecuting anyone from the Bush administraion. They will talk a nice political game. But when it comes right down to it they will hope that this will quietly fade away. Will the his supporters on the left allow that to happen? That remains to be seen.
— lenNYT: Why the ideological filter. No abusive language here on explicitly on topic. Diverse viewpoints add to the discussion.
To begin with, the whole idea that gov’t attorneys or CIA agents should be prosecuted for their good faith efforts to keep this country safe from attack following the carnage of 9/11 is an anathema.
This whole issue has always been used as a useful political cudgel to club the Bush administration with here and abroad. I am glad that the fire that these naked partisans have created (to the detriment of the country’s security and our soldiers) is now beginning to consume them as well. Pelosi knew about these interrogations all along, as did other senior Democrats, and not one voiced any opposition when briefed. Now, when it seems we have the enemy on the run and it is safe once again on the homefront, these cowards come out from under their rocks and call for “truth” commissions into the previous administration’s actions. Absolutely soulless and craven. I should think that if we are hit again, then an actual truth commission should be called and possibly manslaughter or wrongful death charges brought against Holder, Pelosi and crew for lowering our defenses for political purposes.
— David NYCYou will know when a politician is lying — their mouth is moving :)
— Jon