 |
|
A couple points:
Don't miss really important NYT oped today by former CIA CTC deputy general counsel Vicki Divoll (that amplifies a point Marcy Wheeler has been making for weeks):
There is no legally recognized entity under National Security Act as "gang of four."
The whole highly restrictive parameters under which Pelosi was briefed in 2002 (and she says was actively misled in that same single briefing) may be illegal.
There is also highly interesting reporting by Murray Waas from a couple years ago that explains the backdrop to those restricted briefings and you won't be surprised to know it all goes back to Cheney. The upshot: that in the summer of 2002 Cheney was using leaks to threaten to stop notifying Congressional intel committes about covert programs and sensitive information. His reason was that he said Congress leaks (and he meant, Congressional Democrats). But turned out the leaker the FBI identified on intel in question Cheney was fuming about at the time was not a Democrat but a Republican, then ranking R on Senate Intel committee Richard Shelby.
So - June 2002, Cheney looking for reason not to brief Congress. August 2002 - Zubaydah waterboarded 83 times. September 2002 - Pelosi and Goss briefed retractively on methods the CIA determined were "legal" to use in covert enhanced interrogation program. And according to Pelosi, she was not told that Zubaydah had already been waterboarded. Indeed, she says she was told waterboarding was not BEING used (, if technically accurate, highly misleading since it had been used 83 times on Zubaydah the past month).
The then ranking Dem on Senate Intel committee Bob Graham is saying same thing: he also was not briefed that waterboarding was being used.
(Note Wheeler's analysis of Goss oped from last month that is not inconsistent in details with what Pelosi said: they were told methods determined were legal (no doubt in quite sanitized way) but not that they had been used.)
But who pushed for that sort of arguably confined and misleading briefing? Go back to Waas' article. Which starts right at the beginning with a call from a "highly agitated" Cheney to Bob Graham in June 2002 about a leak of intelligence he suspects came from the Hill -- and what Cheney's proposed response was: "Moreover, Graham recalled in an interview for this story, Cheney warned that unless the leaders of the Intelligence committees took action to discover who leaked the information about the intercepts -- and more importantly, to make sure that such leaks never happened again -- President Bush would directly make the case to the American people that Congress could not be trusted with vital national security secrets."
Update: NYT changes its headline. Note url of what it was vs. new headline. Which is interesting because Pelosi has already acknowledged that she learned (from her staffer Sheehy) in Feb 2003 that waterboarding was being used when her successor as ranking Dem on HPSCI Harman and Sheehy were briefed. This is still Sheehy telling Pelosi not the CIA telling Pelosi. .
Note too: chart says CTC briefed Goss and Pelosi on program in September 2002.
Who was in charge of CTC at the time?
Jose Rodriguez.
Who was DO chief when destruction of videotapes recording harsh interrogations occurrred?
Jose Rodriguez.
Who was CIA director?
Goss.
Who lodged protest in Feb 2003 asking for tapes of Zubaydah's waterboarding not to be destroyed following briefing Harman and Sheehy where learned about the waterboarding?
If only the CIA had videotaped the briefings of Congress....
UPDATE II: This from HPSCI chairman Reyes related to Divoll piece:
Politico: Dems: CIA might have broken law.Reyes Statement on Congressional Notification Reform
WASHINGTON, DC (May 14) – Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Silvestre Reyes of Texas today issued the following statement regarding recent issues related to congressional notification on sensitive intelligence programs:
“Ever since President Obama released the Bush-era torture memos, a number of sources, named and unnamed, have been trying to absolve themselves of any responsibility by claiming that they received congressional approval for harsh interrogation tactics. This has devolved into a back and forth over who was told what and when, rather than a serious discussion about what our national security policies should be. It is nothing more than a political distraction. The Republicans have had fun playing politics with this issue, and I am sad to see that some in the press have been obliging them.
“Many of those offering their opinions on this subject seem to think that, once the so-called ‘Gang of Eight’ has been notified about a CIA program, Congress has somehow given its approval or authorization for that program. Nothing could be further from the truth.
“When the CIA came to notify now-Speaker Pelosi about interrogation, they didn’t come seeking her approval. They didn’t even come seeking her opinion. They came to tell her about a policy that they had already approved and, according to CIA documents, was already being employed. The Office of Legal Counsel approved the use of harsh interrogation techniques on August 1, 2002. The first congressional notifications didn’t take place until September 2002, after water boarding had already begun. The Speaker did not know that the notice to her was inaccurate and incomplete.
“Moreover, it is ridiculous to argue that the Speaker, who was then the Ranking Minority Member of the Intelligence Committee, could have prevented President Bush from carrying out this policy. Let’s not forget the tactics the Bush Administration employed on Congress. They tried to cut us out of everything. In 2002, Democrats were in the Minority, and the Bush Administration didn’t care what we thought.
“These are notifications – nothing more. As Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I have been in on a number of these sessions. When the CIA comes in to notify you about a very sensitive intelligence program, you don’t have the opportunity to get all your questions answered or to review legal documents. You’re not allowed to consult with any lawyers or experts. You’re not even allowed to discuss the matter with your colleagues or with your staff.
“When President Obama signed an executive order bringing this Bush-Cheney policy to an end, he stated that ‘I prohibited the use of these interrogation techniques by the United States because they undermine our moral authority and do not make us safer.’ The Speaker has asked us to use this historic opportunity to take the high road and work on making our national security oversight more effective. That is precisely what we’re going to do. We’ll leave the mudslinging to the other side and work on moving forward with reforms that empower Congress to conduct more effective oversight.
“In the coming weeks, I will be working with committee members to advance legislation to modify the National Security Act of 1947. Our intent is to prevent future abuse of the ‘Gang of Eight’ process, to require that the President provide the intelligence committees any relevant legal documents, and to ensure that the voice of all intelligence committee members can be heard on important matters of national security.”