Comments on: Porter Goss Won’t Say Whether He And Pelosi Were Told About Use Of Torture

By: Brent McKay

Brent McKay — Thu, 28 May 2009 15:46:47 +0000

One last thought. The following appears in an AP story titled, “More errors in CIA interrogation briefing list” (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_cia_interrogation):
(This version CORRECTS to show that Obey is a Wisconsin congressman.)

If only the CIA could be as accurate as the AP.

Best

By: Brent McKay

Brent McKay — Thu, 28 May 2009 15:40:36 +0000

Mr. Sargent, if you are going to quote at least don’t quote selectively. Here is the entire quote, “Today, I am slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed; or that specific techniques such as “waterboarding” were never mentioned. It must be hard for most Americans of common sense to imagine how a member of Congress can forget being told about the interrogations of Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed. In that case, though, perhaps it is not amnesia but political expedience.”

And, despite your claim, Mr. Goss’ refusal to elaborate proves nothing more than he chose not to respond to a hostile, and fatuous, question.

Best

By: Ken Stevens

Ken Stevens — Fri, 22 May 2009 11:46:48 +0000

It’s not nearly so important as to who knew what when as what the “what” actually was. That “what” was torture of captive prisoners and it cannot be justified or excused no matter how anyone tries. Torture of prisoners is always wrong. It’s wrong because (1) a tortured person will eventually say or scream ANYTHING (true or false) in hopes of ending it and (2) it makes it impossible to tell or expect adversaries not to do the same with anyone who falls into their clutches. In other words (and I can’t believe the perpetrators or apologists don’t already know this), you can’t believe anything that a tortured person says and you can’t expect the enemy not to do (or overdo) the same thing with their prisoners. For the religious, it’s “do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” That’s a good maxim even for a non-religious type like me.
So enough of what Pelosi knew and when she knew it. That’s just a diversion. Attention should instead be fastened on the perpetrators of torture (including those who specifically authorized it from the top on down), what to do about them, and how to prevent anything like it from ever happening again.

By: John Burke

John Burke — Fri, 22 May 2009 00:08:13 +0000

Maybe Goss just doesn’t remember clearly enough to say with certainty what he and Pelosi were briefed. I must say that all this parsing of who said what when obscures the central point: Pelosi and other key Democrats knew about the harsh interrogations literally years before they became public and Pelosi and the others began relentlessly condemning them.

Pelosi concedes that she was briefed on the techniques and their legality in Sept. 2002; that she was advised by an aide in Feb. 2003 that they had been used; and that she did not do anything or say anything about it in either 2002 or 2003. She has a lot of lame excuses, but they strain credulity.

By: freepatriot

freepatriot — Thu, 21 May 2009 22:10:06 +0000

Lincoln spoke of people who could be fooled ALL THE TIME, and here is one of them

“I trust the CIA more than Pelosi. She’s a pathetic liar, and if she had any self-respect at all she’d resign.”

you trust the CIA ???

Which time ???

when they said they briefed Bob Graham 4 times, or when they admitted that maybe they didn’t brief Bob Graham 4 times. Maybe it was once

and then there is the staffer, who was either briefed in violation of security laws, or turned away at the door, like he says. BTW, the CIA says the staffer was briefed, maybe, or maybe not

so exactly which statement or statements from the CIA do you believe ???

idiot

By: mwl

mwl — Thu, 21 May 2009 15:25:27 +0000

Goss has said as much as he can without breaking the law.

I trust the CIA more than Pelosi. She’s a pathetic liar, and if she had any self-respect at all she’d resign.

By: Bernie Latham

Bernie Latham — Thu, 21 May 2009 14:50:50 +0000

sg – I’ve hit that ‘too fast posting’ flag many times but have never lost a post. Could this be (I’m a tech dummie) a matter of different browsers? I use Chrome.
Tena – didn’t realize you were in Dallas. You don’t know how fortunate you are! Yes, just mere minutes from your home, you can purchase exquisite jewelry crafted by my wife and I! But wait! There’s more!! (no there isn’t…but the other is true).

By: dmv

dmv — Thu, 21 May 2009 14:12:22 +0000

Tena: Fisher shows quite thoroughly that congressional abdication is a post-WWII phenomenon. All Congresses have been pretty bad about it. Incidentally, it’s another reason to push for greater transparency, less classification, etc. If Congress won’t pay attention, there are plenty of us citizens who will. Not that that corrects the structural imbalance. But it’s better than nothing.

By: Tena

Tena — Thu, 21 May 2009 14:02:21 +0000

“but he doesn’t shy away from excoriating Congress for abdicating its responsibilities. And he isn’t exactly optimistic that that will change. I tend to agree with him.”

This Congress? O hell no they won’t. This Congress is almost useless.

By: dmv

dmv — Thu, 21 May 2009 13:54:45 +0000

I reiterate my plea of 9:42 am so that it doesn’t get lost in the shuffle, but I’d just say to Tena, Congress won’t take it back. Take a look at Louis Fisher’s book, Presidential War Power. Fisher is an expert on separation of powers and national security issues for CRS at the Library of Congress (or at least he was when he wrote that book). He’s a major, major advocate of congressional involvement in foreign policy and national security decisionmaking and oversight, but he doesn’t shy away from excoriating Congress for abdicating its responsibilities. And he isn’t exactly optimistic that that will change. I tend to agree with him.

By: Tena

Tena — Thu, 21 May 2009 13:45:44 +0000

As long as Bush had the power to do what he did and he did, then there’s little Obama can do to take back what Bush did here. And you can’t prosecute someone for exceeding his power when Congress handed him a carte blanche.

By: Tena

Tena — Thu, 21 May 2009 13:43:21 +0000

The court yesterday in its decision on what kind of proceedings Gitmo prisoners are entitled to – which is basically none – made it clear where the problem is, people.

You just had to read it. The problem here is the same it has been from the start and no one mentions it in comments but me:

It’s the AUMF; it’s the Homeland Security Act, it’s the Patriot Act.

It’s CONGRESS. The court said so – they threw the case back to Congress and said that Congress gave the president the authority. Which is what I’ve been saying all along with respect to state secrets, Gitmo and all the rest.

Until Congress rescinds that grant of power, the president cannot do much of anything. Congress decided how those people would be dealt with by handing the power to the executive to deal with it.

Congress has to take that power back.

By: dmv

dmv — Thu, 21 May 2009 13:42:36 +0000

Can someone please, please, please, please, please ask the people involved (on the Congress side) whether it was their understanding that they were being briefed about a covert action program, or just an intelligence activity?
.
We have a lot of assumptions floating around about what precisely its status was. I think we need to know what the perceptions of those in Congress was. If they thought it was just a briefing on intelligence activities generally, was it their understanding that they couldn’t share that information with colleagues? With the full intelligence committee? If they thought they were being briefed on a covert action, did any of them ask to see the Presidential finding?
.
I know, these are dull process questions compared to the substantive questions of who was told what precisely about techniques and so forth. But the process questions are incredibly important as a legal matter, and I think they’d help clarify the framework within which these briefings were taking place and what Congress’ understanding was.

By: AllButCertain

AllButCertain — Thu, 21 May 2009 13:35:08 +0000

SG, that link includes the Panetta statement that has gotten such notice: “In the end, you and the committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened.” Between that and Panetta’s use of the present tense when he talked about CIA practice in briefing Congress, we have a man walking a fine and probably necessary line. Assuming we need an intelligence gathering body and that the one we have is typically considered to be battered morale-wise, it’s hard to imagine its new director would throw it directly under the bus. But he’s certainly signaled in every way he can that a lot of suggestions about who heard what when are simply speculative. One of the things we could use in this whole mess is reporters with better reading skills. I’m glad Greg is getting people to own their hedged statements. Now if more people will just acknowledge them for what they are. (And I’ve been copying my longer posts into a temporary file before submitting them because of that too fast posting flag. It saves aggravation.)

By: Tena

Tena — Thu, 21 May 2009 13:23:30 +0000

CIA got it wrong and Harry Reid got it wrong.

Where I live in Dallas is about 2 blocks from where 20 some odd Nazi officers were housed as POW’s in WWII. It was all a party for them – they didn’t want to go back to Germany. There were dances held for them.

Isn’t it odd how differently we treat Christian prisoners?