Pelosi: CIA Misled Congress About Torture

House Speaker Said She Was Not Complicit In Waterboarding Of Terror Suspects

(CBS/AP)  Under strong attack from Republicans, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused the CIA and Bush administration of misleading her about waterboarding detainees in the war on terror and sharply rebutted claims she was complicit in its use.

"To the contrary ... we were told explicitly that waterboarding was not being used," she told reporters, referring to a formal CIA briefing she received in the fall of 2002.

Pelosi said she subsequently learned that other lawmakers were told several months later by the CIA about the use of waterboarding.

"I wasn't briefed, I was informed that somebody else had been briefed about it," she said.

Pelosi said under secrecy laws she was powerless to talk about or do anything to stop it, reports CBS News correspondent Bob Fuss reports.

The House's top Democrat made her comments at a news conference where she was peppered with questions about her knowledge of a technique she and others have called torture. Republicans have insisted in recent weeks that Pelosi and other Democrats knew waterboarding was in use, but made no attempt to protest.

In a written response issued moments after Pelosi spoke, an official at the CIA neither disputed nor accepted the California Democrat's statements.

Instead, George Little, head of the CIA office of public affairs, said it would be up to Congress to determine whether notes made by agency personnel at the time they briefed lawmakers were accurate. He said the notes could be made available at the CIA "for staff review."

Pelosi says she was only briefed once about harsh interrogation methods and was not told waterboarding was being used against top al Qaeda detainees. But the the CIA pointed to recently released documents that raise questions about Pelosi's account, reports CBS News correspondent Bob Orr.

A declassified Justice Department memo shows that Abu Zabaydah was waterboarded "at least 83 times in August 2002"

Pelosi was briefed after that, on Sept. 4, 2002, Orr reports.

According to CIA records she was told about "EITs (enhanced interrogation techniques) on Abu Zubaydah … and a description of particular EITs that had been employed."

Republicans say Pelosi and other democrats were fully in the loop. Between 2002 and 2007, CIA records show, intelligence committee members from both parties received at least 28 classified briefings on harsh interrogations.

Pelosi renewed her call for a so-called truth commission to investigate the events in the Bush administration that led to the use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques. While President Barack Obama has banned waterboarding, calling it torture, he has been notably cool toward an independent inquiry that might distract attention from his domestic agenda.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., also has expressed opposition, as have congressional Republicans.

Pelosi was particularly harsh in describing the CIA.

"They mislead us all the time," she said. And when a reporter asked whether the agency lied, she did not disagree.

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.

Pelosi contended that Democrats did what they could to stop the use of waterboarding. The senior Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, who received the 2003 briefing on the practice, sent the CIA a formal letter of protest, she said.

But Pelosi defended her own lack of action on the issue, saying her focus at the time was on wresting congressional control from Republicans so her party could change course.

"No letter could change the policy. It was clear we had to change the leadership in Congress and in the White House. That was my job - the Congress part," Pelosi said.

[egresor]

let me see ms pelosi?

when you learned about torture being used what did you do?

of course you had no power to stop it. you couldn't violate secrecy laws, but did you do anything?

did you protest at all?

did you write a letter of protest as ms harman did?

no you didn't did you?

you sat on your hands and didn't do anything. i don't want a speaker of the house like that!

[Duhmocrat]

Typical Dumbocrat response. Blame the Bush administration. "New Math Nancy" strikes again!

[Duhmocrat]

I 'm sure the terrorists who were repeatedly "water-boarded" are happy we don't decapitate them like Al Qaeda does to our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen.

[6591Hou]

GOP strategy:

1) Hire a lawyer and tell him or her to decide that some behavior is legal
2) point to that decision as a reason that the action was OK.

Politically brilliant Ethically abysmal
Posted by science-rules
==============================
The analogy really is having grabbed the tiger by the tail - how do you let go? Our political class seems to be too busy throwing accusations back and forth and trying to deflect blame to come up with an adult solution.

[sonial8]

LIAR= PELOSI
PELOSI = Dem version of BUSH

[science-rules]

GOP strategy:

1) Hire a lawyer and tell him or her to decide that some behavior is legal
2) point to that decision as a reason that the action was OK.

Politically brilliant Ethically abysmal

[science-rules]

The longer the debate revolves around Pelosi and what she heard or didn't hear, the longer that light-shunning succubus of a former vice-president gets away with treason.

[Newster1]

You really think that if we dont cause any physical pain to the terrorist he's gonna tell us the truth? Give me a break
Posted by BaghdadsHere15

No, give US a break, it's been proven long ago that torture does NOT WORK, because the onebeing tortured will say and do ANYTHING, even making things up to make the torture STOP, a half crazed captive in pain is hardly a reliable informant!
Youd be as accurate interviewing someone stoned on hard drugs.

[6591Hou]

To implement the treaties, the U.S. enacted the Torture Act (18 U.S.C. 2340 and 2340A), the War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441) and the Prohibition of Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment or Punishment of Persons Under Custody or Control of the United States Government (42 U.S.C. 2000dd).
Posted by 45ford
=============
2000dd?0. Additional prohibition on cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment
(1) In general
No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
(2) Cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment defined
In this section, the term ?cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment? means cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.
(3) Compliance
The President shall take action to ensure compliance with this section, including through the establishment of administrative rules and procedures.

This falls under Title 42 - "The Public Health and Welfare" and is applicable in the US, it's a protection for us from the government.

[6591Hou]

To implement the treaties, the U.S. enacted the Torture Act (18 U.S.C. 2340 and 2340A), the War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441) and the Prohibition of Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment or Punishment of Persons Under Custody or Control of the United States Government (42 U.S.C. 2000dd).
Posted by 45ford
=============
18 USC 2441. War crimes
(a) Offense.? Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances.? The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
(c) Definition.? As used in this section the term ?war crime? means any conduct?
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a grave breach of common Article 3 (as defined in subsection (d)) when committed in the context of and in association with an armed conflict not of an international character; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.
(d) Common Article 3 Violations.?
(1) Prohibited conduct.? In subsection (c)(3), the term ?grave breach of common Article 3? means any conduct (such conduct constituting a grave breach of common Article 3 of the international conventions done at Geneva August 12, 1949), as follows:
(A) Torture.? The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.

This applies to violations of Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions - if terrorists aren't covered by Article 3 of the Convention then this is not applicable.

[6591Hou]

To implement the treaties, the U.S. enacted the Torture Act (18 U.S.C. 2340 and 2340A), the War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441) and the Prohibition of Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment or Punishment of Persons Under Custody or Control of the United States Government (42 U.S.C. 2000dd).
Posted by 45ford
=================
Your posts on the US Code are well taken, below for those who haven't seen them is 18 USC 2340 and 2340A

18 USC 2340
As used in this chapter?
(1) ?torture? means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) ?severe mental pain or suffering? means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from?
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) ?United States? means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

2340A. Torture
(a) Offense.? Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction.? There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if?
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
(c) Conspiracy.? A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

2340A does say that the offender must be present in the United States to apply, so in order to have it apply a court will have to rule on whether US sovereignty on foreign shored facilities fills the bill.

[melpol1]

Recent headlines are full of stories about torture. Writers seem to be surprised that torture was being used on detainees suspected of being involved in terrorist activity. This is nothing new. Torture has been going on since recorded history. Spartacus, Jesus, and millions of others rebels were tortured. It was done as punishment to break their wills before murdering them. This practiced should be stopped. Nobody but Sadistic monsters benefit from it.
Some are saying that that the recent torture of detainees was used to gather information that was useful in protecting the nation. But there has been no proof that a single bit of that information was useful. There have been other reasons for torturing hundreds of detainees. New evidence is surfacing that false confessions were used to give a valid reason for the invasion of Iraq. There is a wide spread investigation now going on to get at the truth. It is feared that the answer will be that it was done for the joy of the Sadists in power. This should come as no surprise. Sadism is the norm in most areas of life and it is found most often in wartime. Many join the military for the opportunity to express themselves

[6591Hou]

but you cannot logically make the case that the Geneva Conventions apply to a global terrorist network.
Posted by 6591Hou at 6:33 AM : May 15, 2009

Boy you neo nuts sure love to invent facts, re-read into things, spread you idiotic gibberish. If torture was okay:

WHY DID GE AND DICK HAVE THEIR OWN POLITICALLY APPOINTED LAWYER DRAFT A MEMO REDEFINING THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES TORTURE?????????????????????

does'nt that tell you morons that they knew they had to change the law???????????????
Posted by Marine111
========================
You sir are dodging the issue, and calling me a 'neo nut' doesn't make you right. The fact of the matter was that the Geneva Convention does not cover terrorists, which was the point of the original post of usmcsgt. Your overheated and infantile rhetoric as it stands, doesn't make up for the fact that you apparently have no intellectual capability to discuss anything beyond Bush and Cheney (neither of whom I voted for in either election).
Personally I don't give two cents for any of the professional political class, regardless of party. They're only in it for the power and the chance to remain in power. If you want to sell your soul to the democrats, or republicans, then knock yourself out but in the mean time if you actually want to try to have a dialogue about what the country should do with people plucked off of battlefields who don't belong to an army, come from lots of different countries, and don't want to comply with the Geneva Convention then let's talk. If all you can spout is neo-this and repug-that then you don't really have anything to say.

[edward1975-2009]

These detainees are not covered under either the Constitution or the Geneva Convention. And to say anything other than that is a bold faced lie. Try reading said Convention and you will see why. Freakin idiots.

[joe1022joe]

The US uses water boarding in the training of our own people for certain intellegence related positions. We don't torture our own people. Water boarding is not torture. It's uncomfortable, but it is not torture.

[moderateminded44]

She was on the freaken INTEL COMMITTEE! This was after 9/11 and she wasn't informed? In fact, one of her excuses is that she was distracted by her main responsibility of getting a democratic majority in congress. And this woman is on the INTEL COMMITTEE??? Who is the simpleton?
Posted by jgg00000008 at 8:05 AM : May 15, 2009

So bring her down....I dare you to bring Pelosi down for Bush and Cheney's stupidity....

One Democrat goes down and how many Repiglickkers get mashed in the process...LOL

The Grand Ole Party of Hate is setting itself up to COMPLETELY disappear!!! I'm gonna love this.

[moderateminded44]

yet you are silent on the right to life you dems deny to babies, and the attack on the second amendment- disarming victims so criminals can kill.
Posted by ralpherus at 7:25 AM : May 15, 2009

Gitmo = freedom
and
Choice = slavery...

How could I have been so silly?

The true philosophy of a Repiglikkker.

[SanityPlease]

Seriously, who in their right mind would go to war against the cia and fbi? She's toast.
Posted by jgg00000008 at 7:53 AM : May 15, 2009

The Bush White House already went to war with the CIA, putting the Iraq fiasco with the Plame affair on the CIA's faulty intelligence, also the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) declared that Iran was no where near in making a bomb.

Contrary to Cheney's paranoia The Bush administration did more than damage to the intelligence community, they destroyed it. There is no credibilty left for it to defend.

[SanityPlease]

Democrats are cheap scum thieving fascist traitor murder pigs- the ENEMIES OF FREEDOM.
Posted by ralpherus at 7:25 AM : May 15, 2009

You've got it all backwards,upside down and into the sewers,pal.

You are the one denying freedom to Americans. Cheney's secret White House meetings, wiretaps, renditions, no- trial imprisonments, killings on a whim, invading Iraq on a lie and making the US a pariah in the world.

Wake up and see yourself in the mirror.You have seen the enemy, an they is YOU.

[moderateminded44]

yet you are silent on the right to life you dems deny to babies, and the attack on the second amendment- disarming victims so criminals can kill.
Posted by ralpherus at 7:25 AM : May 15, 2009

Yes, of course...because abortion is a much more important topic than creating little experimental torture prisons in the US.

Yes, of course...Gitmo = freedom and Choice = slavery...How could I have been so silly?

The true philosophy of a Repiglikkker.