Review Of CIA Memos Divides Congress

Washington Post: What House Speaker Nancy Pelosi And Other Lawmakers Learned In 2002 Remains Elusive

(Washingtonpost.com)  This story was written by Washington Post Staff Writers Paul Kane and Joby Warrick.

---

Sequestered in rooms buried deep within the Capitol and requiring top-secret clearances to enter, members of the House and Senate intelligence committees have spent the past week leafing through documents at the heart of Washington's latest who-knew-what-and-when saga.

But rather than emerging with clear agreement on what the memos reveal about the CIA briefing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi received in 2002, and whether she was aware that aggressive interrogation methods were being used on terrorism suspects, lawmakers remain as divided as ever about the story they tell.

And unless those detailed documents prove to be more precise than some who have viewed them suggest - or until the CIA is willing to declassify them - it is possible that what Pelosi and other lawmakers learned almost seven years ago about the use of waterboarding and other techniques may never be definitively understood.

Republicans who have seen the documents say they present a clear case that Pelosi, D-Calif., was told about the waterboarding of a key al-Qaeda operative, rejecting her accusation that the CIA intentionally misled her about the interrogation technique, which simulates drowning. "I came away feeling comfortable in saying the speaker owes the [intelligence] community an apology at the least," said Rep. Mike Rogers (Mich.), a former FBI agent.

But Democrats, as well as some former intelligence officials, warn that the documents are far from definitive and reflect only after-the-fact recollections from CIA briefers who never intended to produce full transcripts of the sessions. "You can have a lot of interpretation either way," said Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (Md.), who said he "sped-read" the documents this week.

Those documents, which were delivered to the intelligence panels last week, have become the latest front in the pitched battle to shape the legacy of the Bush administration's use of "enhanced interrogation techniques."

Members of Congress are largely divided into two camps: One says that the CIA intentionally withheld information about the tactics it was already using against detainees, even as it was providing Congress with intelligence that led to an overwhelming bipartisan vote supporting the use of force in Iraq to rid Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction. The other says that Pelosi is covering up her original tacit support of techniques that she now labels as torture.

Pelosi and leading Republicans have asked for the briefing memos to be declassified, each side seeming to think their release will vindicate its cause. And on Thursday, House Democrats blocked a Republican effort to form a special committee to investigate Pelosi's allegation that CIA officials misled her.

But the speaker made clear yesterday that she does not intend to continue discussing the matter publicly. After a news conference devoted to the accomplishments of the Democratic Congress, she dismissed reporters' questions about the controversy.

"I have made the statement I am going to make on this. I don't have anything more to say about it," she said before departing for a week-long trip to China.

The differing interpretations of the briefing memos mirror the conflicting recollections of Pelosi and three other congressional leaders about what they were told roughly a year after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Porter J. Goss, R-Fla., the former representative who chaired the intelligence panel in 2002, has suggested that he and Pelosi left their briefing understanding "what the CIA was doing" and offering their support, while Pelosi said waterboarding and other aggressive techniques were mentioned only as legal tactics for future interrogations.

Even more deeply divergent are the recollections of Bob Graham, D-Fla., the former senator who chaired the Senate intelligence committee in 2002, and Sen. Richard C. Shelby (Ala.), the panel's ranking Republican. In interviews this week, Graham said waterboarding was never mentioned by CIA briefers in their meeting. But Shelby said that he and Graham were specifically told that the technique had already yielded valuable information.

The CIA participated in more than 2,100 congressional briefings and meetings during the 110th Congress - an average of more than 20 sessions a week. But the agency declined to discuss details of specific briefings, and a spokesman yesterday again dismissed suggestions that the agency gave lawmakers a misleading portrait of the interrogations.

"The CIA takes seriously its responsibility to provide information to the United States Congress," said the spokesman, George Little.

On Sept. 4, 2002 - the House's first full day back in session after a six-week recess - Pelosi and Goss were summoned to the ultra-secure intelligence committee room on the fourth floor of the Capitol. No electronic devices are allowed to be taken into the room, which is so small some lawmakers have dubbed it "the padded cell." Only lawmakers and staff with high-level clearances are allowed past a Capitol Police officer who stands guard.

CIA records show the session was led by officials from its counterterrorism center, which at the time was run by Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., who later left the CIA amid questions about the destruction of videotapes of detainees being waterboarded. Intelligence officials did not consider the briefing "time sensitive" but simply an effort to bring the lawmakers up to speed on what was labeled a "highly sensitive collection activity," according to former intelligence officials. Shelby and Graham would not be briefed for another 23 days.

Two officials present during the briefings in 2002 said the talks were overshadowed by fears of more terrorist attacks. "It was wartime crisis mode, and all the chatter at the time was about a 'second wave,'" said one congressional official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the briefings were classified. "The next attack was supposed to be even bigger, and everyone was taking it very seriously."

Against that backdrop, lawmakers from both parties pressed the CIA for details about what it was learning from a high-value captive: Abu Zubaida, whose real name is Zayn al-Abidin Muhammed Hussein. There was little, if any, questioning about how the information was obtained, according to the two participants.

"No one in either party was questioning interrogation tactics," said the congressional official. "People from [both] parties were saying, 'Do what it takes.' Their questions were, 'Do you have the authorities you need?' and 'Are you doing enough?'"

Members of the intelligence committees in both parties say briefings can be a congressional version of a cat-and-mouse game. "If you don't ask the right question, you won't get the answer," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill. Newcomers to the panels often fail to "do their homework enough to ask the right question," noted Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., a former chairman.

The House committee recently moved into more spacious, technologically advanced quarters in the Capitol Visitor Center. Each lawmaker's space has an individual monitor, and an internal instant messaging system allows committee staffers to alert lawmakers to messages from outside the secure room.

Some lawmakers, particularly those not on the intelligence committees, can become annoyed at the restrictions placed on them if they seek classified information, such as a bar on discussing the findings with their own staff members or with lawmakers who have not received the briefings.

For example, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the Financial Services Committee, said Treasury Department officials called him in June 2006 about an anti-terrorism issue relating to his panel's jurisdiction that was about to break in the news. Told he would be forbidden from criticizing the administration's actions after receiving a briefing, Frank recalled in a recent interview, "I said goodbye."

However, because he was told about the basic subject matter, Frank said he is barred from even confirming what the issue was.

Staff writers Perry Bacon Jr. and Walter Pincus and staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

[egresor]

my question is will that cia person who it looks like destroyed official government videos to hide the truth from the maerican people will be prosecuted like everybody else who does the same in private life?

will they receive a pension from we taxpayers for violating our laws like the members of congress who've been thrown out of congress for crimes? of course he will and i wonder who wrote those laws to give government pension to crooks. does private business give big pensions to people to commit crimes against them> of course not. then why are they different?

out country's leaders are idiots!

[dhutch88]

Gingrich, however, really shouldn't be lecturing anyone about values. While attacking Clinton over his infidelities, Gingrich had a couple of divorces and some other problems

By the way getting a divorce and cheating on your wife are two very different things. Clinton was cheating with an intern.

[dhutch88]

Dont tell me let me guess the Democrates want terrorists who represent no country to recieve due process. These terrorist are the same people who decapitate and shoot kids and murder those who disagree with them. Let me guess Democrates want to hug it out.

[rednomo]

Gingrich, however, really shouldn't be lecturing anyone about values. While attacking Clinton over his infidelities, Gingrich had a couple of divorces and some other problems:

There was Jackie, his former high school math teacher, whom he divorced as she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery, and Marianne, whom he married shortly after divorcing Jackie, and with whom he was still married when he began his relationship with Callista -- an affair that occurred around the time he was promising to never give another speech as Speaker of the House without mentioning the Lewinsky scandal.

Gingrich should know about being forced to resign as House Speaker:

During this period, Gingrich focused on the perjury charges against Clinton as a unifying campaign theme in national Republican advertising. While Republicans believed this theme would ensure gains in the 1998 midterm elections, they instead lost five seats in the House ? the worst performance in 64 years for a party that didn't hold the presidency. Polls showed that Gingrich and the Republican Party's attempt to remove President Clinton from office was widely unpopular among the American public.

Gingrich suffered much of the blame for the election loss. Facing another rebellion in the Republican caucus, he announced on November 6 that he would not only stand down as Speaker, but would leave the House as well. He had been handily reelected to an 11th term in that election, but declined to take his seat.

[rednomo]

Do as I say...errr...don't say as I did...err...

Durbin Calls On Gingrich To Apologize For Attacking The CIA In 2007

Last week, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich called on Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to resign her current position as Speaker. He said that she ?disqualified herself? over her comments that the CIA was ?misleading? Congress.

As ThinkProgress pointed out, Gingrich himself has accused the CIA, among other U.S. intelligence agencies, of misleading Congress and undermining the president. In response to the release of the 2007 Iran National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) ? which concluded that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program ? Gingrich said that he believed the NIE and its authors were ?damaging to our own national security.? He said that the document was ?a deliberate attempt to undermine the policies of President Bush by members of his own government by suggesting that Iran no longer poses a serious threat to U.S. national security.?

Today on NBC?s Meet the Press, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) brought up this point. He said that if Gingrich is so offended by Pelosi?s comments, then he should also apologize for what he said in 2007:

DURBIN: I?d just say that I?m afraid Mr. Gingrich is suffering from a little political amnesia here. He?s forgotten that in year 2007, he criticized the National Intelligence estimate in regard to the capability of Iran to develop nuclear weapons and said that ? if I remember the quote correctly, I?m looking down here ? that what they did damaged our national security and misled the American people. Mr. Gingrich, would you like to make an apology to our intelligence agency for what you said in 2007?

GINGRICH: I said that particular report was intellectually dishonest. It was a public, non-classified report, and we were debating it. I said it was intellectually dishonest. I never said the CIA lied to the Congress, which would be illegal. It would be a felony.

During the exchange, Durbin also brought up Rep. Pete Hoekstra?s (R-MI) criticisms of the CIA, including his 2008 statement that the CIA ?may have been lying or concealing part of the truth? in testimony to Congress regarding a 2001 incident in which the CIA mistakenly killed an American citizen in Peru. ?We cannot have an intelligence community that covers up what it does and then lies to Congress,? Hoekstra said of the incident. ?Should he apologize?? asked Durbin. Gingrich, of course, responded that there was nothing wrong with what Hoekstra said.

[bigsk8fan]

i wonder if the torture used by bush and cheney got any 'terrorist' to admit to 'witchcraft'. that worked in the middle ages.

[bigsk8fan]

don't tell me, let me guess. republicans want to protect the torturers. democrats believe and value american ideals. in all of american history, only republicans under bush have ever tortured. these people have no idea about what makes america great.

[abbe91]

"If it is against the law to use any techniques available for a chance to save innocent lives, then the law is wrong. I say, its time to fix those laws, not persecute lawmakers who saw the chance to save lives and took it. A good start might be that non-permanent damage may be inflicted under rule of a subpeona. Doesnt matter, Its unamaerican to stand by while innocents die.
Posted by McHineguy at 2:35 PM : May 24, 2009"

Torture was used to establish a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, a request to fulfill Bush & Cheney's agenda. To some extent, torture didn't save lives but cost us the lives of 4000 soldiers.

[quapawsix]

Stay tuned to for more Old and the Useless. This is a really bad never ending drama.

[McHineguy]

If it is against the law to use any techniques available for a chance to save innocent lives, then the law is wrong. I say, its time to fix those laws, not persecute lawmakers who saw the chance to save lives and took it. A good start might be that non-permanent damage may be inflicted under rule of a subpeona. Doesnt matter, Its unamaerican to stand by while innocents die.

[ontheleft]

"Bush and Cheney ?stands by his lie? to congress and America to promote his own right wing nazi agenda. Last time I checked, this draws a prison sentence. He should immediately be impeached, waterboarded, and locked up! Let the right wing bubbas in prison take care of this situation."

[budmag06]

"Regardless of who knew what when, if the action of waterboarding is so rejected"

It certainly wasn't rejected by Nancy Pelosi. The truth is that many Democrats knew about it and later used the subject for political gain.

"Plastic-face blinking-eye-ostrich Pelosi ?stands by her lie? to congress and America to promote her own socialist liberal agenda. Last time I checked, this draws a prison sentence. She should immediately be impeached, waterboarded, and locked up! Let the liberal girls in prison take care of this situation."

Well said!!!

[1notrub11]

"No one in either party was questioning interrogation tactics," said the congressional official. "People from [both] parties were saying, 'Do what it takes.' Their questions were, 'Do you have the authorities you need?' and 'Are you doing enough?'"

Regardless of who knew what when, if the action of waterboarding is so rejected, where were the complaints between 2002 and now. Too much political expediency if you ask me.

[maistir]

Every one of these issues would have to be settled finally in the courts, but it is extremely doubtful (just my opinion) that anyone will ever be prosecuted, unlesss there is more and better evidence available.

Why, then, do the politicians continue to fight over past history that cannot be settled by them? It stirs up their political bases; nothing more.

The great failure, however, is the politicians' failure to act to prevent harsh interrogation tactics in the future (if that is the course they decide on). An Act of Congress signed into law by the President would specifically outlaw any technique deemed "torturous". And please don't tell me that Pres. Obama's order to prohibit such techniques for the time being is just as good as law. He has kept for himself the right to order the use of such techniques again.

Of course, if Congress tried to pass legislation, it might have to face the fact that a majority does not really want such techniques outlawed, no matter how many of them like to denounce harsh interrogations. The President might also have to face the fact that he wants such tactics to remain available, though not currently in use, as his order implies.

[inventagod]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1900248,00.html

[inventagod]

Most of today's Vets fought for the CIA, not some gloried American ideal.
Ask yourself if dying for the CIA Pentagoons is really worth it?

It's ONE thing to defend America, another to invade for large corporations...

[weedapoopl]

we also need to know what Pelosi knew and when she knew it.
Posted by ubrew12 at 7:02 AM : May 24, 2009

PELOSIGATE!

Oops, Obama needs to provoke some terrorist attack somewhere to divert attention...

[ubrew12]

The charge that Cheney ordered waterboarding to bolster his illegal invasion of Iraq comes from fellow Republican Lawrence Wilkerson, who was also part of the Bush White House. Not communist liberals. Not witchhunting Pelosi groupies. Its a serious charge, made by a Republican, of another Republican, and needs an independent investigation to determine its veracity.

Of course, we also need to know what Pelosi knew and when she knew it. Gotta leave some room in there for the tabloid journalism we've all come to know and love.

[SanityPlease]

Obama, the total communist, using the same tactics as Hitler did.
Posted by WeeWillowWinkle at 5:58 AM : May 24, 2009

Well, you must be another Einstein, calling Obama a COMMUNIST and a FASCIST at the same time. unified theory anyone???

Obama has got to be something of a genius to be a blend of that, two extremes in one man........wow! ... thanks for letting us know.

[weedapoopl]

This is just a Republican witch hunt. It is smoke and mirrors to divert the nation's attention from the real problems we face.
Posted by eroosevelt08 at 11:23 PM : May 23, 2009

You mean, like the Democrats' partisan witch hunt against Bush interrogation techniques?

I warned everybody that they were opening Pandora's box.

Now it's coming true.

The partisan witch hunts are on, and they won't end until every politician in WDC is behind bars.