Pelosi issues statement on torture briefings

Nancy Pelosi says told in the fall of 2002 that certain torture techniques were legal and that the Administration was considering making use of them.

Spencer Ackerman of TPMM recently posted Pelosi's official statement on the matter:

"On one occasion, in the fall of 2002, I was briefed on interrogation techniques the Administration was considering using in the future. The Administration advised that legal counsel for the both the CIA and the Department of Justice had concluded that the techniques were legal.

"I had no further briefings on the techniques. Several months later, my successor as Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman, was briefed more extensively and advised the techniques had in fact been employed. It was my understanding at that time that Congresswoman Harman filed a letter in early 2003 to the CIA to protest the use of such techniques, a protest with which I concurred."

Pelosi's statement is consistent with yesterday's story by Warrick and Eggen in the Washington Post.  The article said Pelosi was briefed about waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods in September, 2002.

Pelosi seems to be putting a lot of weight the distinction between being told that torture was legal and being told the CIA was torturing people.

If Pelosi knew that the Administration and the CIA had signed off on the legality of torture, what did she do about it?

As Pelosi notes in her statement, the subsequent ranking Democrat on the Intel Committee Jane Harman was briefed on advised that the techniques had already been employed. Pelosi says she "concurred" with Harman's 2003 protest letter to the CIA. Does that mean she signed something, or did she just silently agree with Harman?

After Pelosi  became House Majority Leader, she replaced Harman as committee chair. Come to think of it, Pelosi replaced Harman with Sylvestre "Jose Rodriguez is Jack Bauer" Reyes.

Comments

[Eric Jaffa]

Nancy Pelosi wasn't a powerful person in 2002. She was in the minority, in a Republican House which froze out the Democrats. She was also barred from talking publicly about classified information.

By the time of the 2004 election, the public had access to information via news reports about the extreme views of the Bush Administration in support of torture.

If the idea is that she should have broken the law on classified information to speak out, that wouldn't have helped.

Put the blame on the Bush Administration. Put the blame on about half the American voters. Put the blame on members of Congress who voted for the Military Commissions Act. Don't blame Nancy Pelosi.

[Buzz]

Part of the Pelosi statement from TPMM:
"On one occasion, in the fall of 2002, I was briefed on interrogation techniques the Administration was considering using in the future."
This is not an acknowledgement by Pelosi that she was briefed on waterboarding or any other method of torture that would be illegal.
"Interrogation techniques" does not equal torture.
Until Pelosi acknowledges that she was briefed on waterboarding or other methods that would legally be considered torture I am reserving judgement.

[po]

Perhaps these briefings are also why Pelosi and other Dems in Congress appear to see the need to immunize the telecoms for their complicity in Bush's warrantless spying programs. They were likely briefed on these as well and did, well, nothing. And while admittedly it's kinda hard to do any oversight when you're in the minority and the climate is one of hysteria and veiled threats; that is their job -- to uphold and defend the US Constitution.

[po]

Perhaps these briefings are also why Pelosi and other Dems in Congress appear to see the need to immunize the telecoms for their complicity in Bush's warrantless spying programs. They were likely briefed on these as well and did, well, nothing. And while admittedly it's kinda hard to do any oversight when you're in the minority and the climate is one of hysteria and veiled threats; that is their job -- to uphold and defend the US Constitution.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

The people who can supply the facts aren't giving them. They're hedging and equivocating and covering their asses about what they knew about a then-secret torture program the existence of which is no longer classified.

Why can't she just say, "Nobody told me about waterboarding in September, 2002"? It's really simple. I want a straight answer from her on this. Other people at that meeting told the Washington Post that waterboarding was discussed at then. Yes, let's hear Pelsoi respond to that claim.

The question is what Pelosi did in her oversight capacity as ranking member, not whether she should have gone public.

Notice how we've already shifted from "she didn't know" to "we don't know what she could have done if she did know."

[mudkitty]

LB, you're still ignoring the fact that it was classified, and lawmakers, need surrogates for civil disobedience.

The penalty for treason, is, after all, death.

[Eric Jaffa]

RE "Why can't she just say, 'Nobody told me about waterboarding in September, 2002'?"

Because it's still classfied.

[scott]

I see. The reason Pelosi and company can't say anything now and couldn't say anything then is because a co-equal branch of government said they couldn't because it's classified. Wow. Those checks and balances are really working, aren't they?

[Cass]

These debates might be a little interesting if the character of these prominent Democrats were at all unknown to us. But as Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, they've aided and abetted the administration in these policies every step of the way, while bleating insincere concerns, for our benefit, about law and the Constitution. Its impossible to put any positive interpretation on the "hedging and equivocating and covering their asses" they're doing today.

I'll always choose Democrats over Republicans at the voting booth; just as, if I was forced at knife-point to choose, I'd take a diet of lead shavings over plutonium. That doesn't mean I have to like it, and it doesn't mean I have to pretend black is white.

[scott]

Cass:

Word. That is all.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

A briefing that didn't happen isn't classified. Was there a meeting in 2002 at which Nancy Pelosi was told about any aspect of waterboarding?

If Pelosi doesn't give me a clear "no", or an honest "I can't talk about what I knew", she's covering for the torturers now, even if she was out of the loop in 2002.

She admits that she was briefed on coercive interrogation techniques, e.g., torture.

The strictures of classification don't prevent Pelosi from telling her side of the story in broad outline. Pelosi said that she was informed about the legality of certain interrogation methods that were not yet in place and that Harman was advised that the program had been implemented and that she concurred with Harman's secret letter of protest. So, it's not as if she's forbidden from speaking altogether.

She admits she was briefed on coercive interrogation techniques. Now, I want to know what she did about it. I'm not saying that she should have gone public. I'd like to know what her options were, and the extent to which she exercised vigorous oversight over the program. She was told something horrifying in 2002. What did she do next?

[scott]

Re LB's question about Pelosi's response, my guess would be, nada.

[Buzz]

Lindsay wrote:
"She admits that she was briefed on coercive interrogation techniques, e.g., torture."

In the Polosi statement on TPPM , Polosi says she was briefed on "interrogation techniques", she did not say "coercive interrogation techniques" or "torture".
I don't see why it is acceptable to put words in her mouth that she did not say.

[B-Money]

"In the Polosi statement on TPPM , Polosi says she was briefed on "interrogation techniques", she did not say "coercive interrogation techniques" or "torture".
I don't see why it is acceptable to put words in her mouth that she did not say." -Buzz

Have there been any other types of "interrogation techinques" under this administration other than "coercive" ones? I highly doubt it.

Buzz, you are playing a game of semantics and continue to repeat yourself endlessly. You are defending Pelosi, we get it. You are a wonk towing the party line. Fine. But blame is laid at the feet of our leaders, and Pelosi is the top ranking Democrat right now. In that capacity, she should be offering an explanation. She has not to date. Lindsay's points are valid and right on.

[Buzz]

B - Money
Apparently even after I've repeated myself endlessly you still don't understand what I am saying. I am not in this to defend Pelosi or anyone else from something that they have actually done but I object to the lynch mob mentality of forming judgements based on innuendo, the echo chamber and a disregard for the fact that words need to be used carefully if they are to have any meaning.

[Dock Miles]

>Now, I want to know what she did about it. I'm not saying that she should have gone public. I'd like to know what her options were, and the extent to which she exercised vigorous oversight over the program. She was told something horrifying in 2002. What did she do next?

Good points. Nothing indicates that it was a profile in courage, that's for sure. Pelosi has caved on numerous issues and seems unaware of how rudderless/spineless/clueless it makes her whole party seem. (I do not think it makes them into conscious collaborators with the administration, though.)

[utica]

i'm impressed that "it's classified" is still being offered up as a defense. to those taking up this position, you have to carry it to its logical conclusion.

the government disregards the law and commits war crimes in secret, at which point that secrecy is used to justify itself, because after all it would be breaking the law to disclose secret information (what's not clear to me is where this respect for "the rule of law" was when they decided to kidnap and torture thousands of innocent muslims). so laws protecting government secrecy supersede laws against torture? don't you see where this ends? it means the government can do anything it wants, as long as it's "classified".
the government is not allowed to break the law, and declaring illegal actions "top secret" doesn't change this.

buzz,
your point is that pelosi hasn't expressly confessed to foreknowledge of CIA waterboarding. then again, we all knew clinton got blown long before he admitted it. as the circumstantial evidence piles up, the value of an admission of guilt declines (and eliptical non-denial denials become increasingly suspicious).

[Dock Miles]

>was when they decided to kidnap and torture thousands of innocent muslims

Get some guts. Make it millions.

[utica]

dock,
point taken. though it's worth noting that the exact number will remain classified for the foreseeable future, because it would be totally against the law for someone in the know to tell us.

[Dock Miles]

Good. Then stop the crap.

>was when they decided to kidnap and torture innocent muslims

Is hard to refute.

>was when they decided to kidnap and torture thousands of innocent muslims

Gets you jeered by hard-asses who don't see it that way. It's an important shift. Part of the campaign to stop the screaming pinheads from defining the issues.

[utica]

dock,
again with the attitude? i'm sure you could find ways to express your disagreement without taking petty jabs at my intellect. different strokes, i guess...

you bring attention to the word "thousands", and call me a screaming pinhead for failing to avoid the jeers of "hard-asses who don't see it that way."
we have been conducting two unique counter-insurgencies for some time, even as we arrest people all over the globe in the name of "homeland security." do you think fewer than 1,000 people have been detained during the last six years? should i really bother to make room for people who think 999 or fewer people have been tortured? don't you think hard-asses would be more offended by the word "hard-asses" than the word "thousands?"

in any case, good luck on your "campaign" to save rational discourse by keeping jerks like me in check. maybe if you bully enough internet pseudonyms whose tone you don't like, we'll finally figure out how to end this dang war. with such grand aspirations, though, you might want to aim a little higher.

[Dock Miles]

>i'm sure you could find ways to express your disagreement without taking petty jabs at my intellect.

>call me a screaming pinhead

Again with the thin-skinned? If you look, you will see that I have not now, nor have I ever, called you a screaming pinhead.

But I cannot express myself in the bland, namby-pamby language that prevents those so inclined from construing that I'm saying something nasty about them. I gave up long ago when it became clear that if you sound rough-edged or dyspeptic or as fed-up as I feel these days, somebody will find a way to take it personally. So I stopped trying. You can't soothe everybody.

>whose tone you don't like

It isn't about tone. It's about credibility, factual remarks, careful statements.

You are the one who has a problem with tone.

And, with all due respect, I couldn't care less.

[freelunch]

We need a law that makes it a felony (15 years to life) to misuse the laws about classified information to hide a felony. All people who know about the felony and the criminally classified documents will be subject to this law. It must be the duty of every citizen to stand up to criminal abuse of the classification system.

[Buzz]

Utica,
Convicting a person based on circumstantial evidence is the very definition of the lynch mob mentality I referred to. While the lynch mob may sometimes be correct in their assumptions, they are also often wrong. The "everyone knows", "everyone says" argument is not valid to me.
"Everyone knew" Saddam had weapons of mass destruction based on circumstantial evidence and lies presented as facts.
It turns out that "Curveball" didn't always tell the truth.
You can learn a lot about this by watching "Bonanza" reruns.
The mob is always in a hurry and the members always believe that they are right.
I guess that I just have a Cartwright mentality in that I believe in the rule of law and that people should have a fair trial.

[B-Money]

"...but I object to the lynch mob mentality of forming judgements based on innuendo, the echo chamber and a disregard for the fact that words need to be used carefully if they are to have any meaning."

What lynch mob mentality? Apparently you missed a previous thread discussion on what a lynch mob is and the use of that term. Where is all the outrage from all of you who raked Phantom across the coals for using "lynch mob"? I guess some people get free passes and others do not...What a joke!

Buzz, you ARE defending Pelosi. The basic point here is that she owes the people an explanation about what she knew and when she knew it, and she has yet to give one. That's all. Everything else is irrelevant.