Richard Shelby Weighs In, But Doesn’t Clarify Key Points
GOP Senator Richard Shelby, who was briefed along with Bob Graham on interrogations not long after Nancy Pelosi, has now weighed in on what he was told.
Shelby is walking a very delicate balancing act. While he’s contradicting Graham’s claim that torture techniques weren’t discussed, Shelby also stops short of saying he was told torture techniques were actually used — a distinction central to the current political war.
Shelby was briefed with Graham on September 27th 2002, about three weeks after Pelosi. Shelby’s spokesperson has now described the briefing to The Hill:
“As Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in 2002, Senator Shelby was briefed by the CIA on the Agency’s interrogation program and the existence of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EITs). To his recollection, not only did the CIA briefers provide what was purported to be a full account of the techniques, they also described the need for these techniques and the value of the information being obtained from terrorists during questioning. The Senate briefing also included an explanation of how these techniques were consistent with the law and with the national security interests of the U.S. To his recollection, while there was a great deal of discussion, there were no objections raised during the Senate briefing he attended.”
This is very carefully worded. It says Shelby was told about the “existence” of the techniques and given a “full account” of their existence. This doesn’t address whether they were used. He was also told about the “value of the information being obtained from terrorists during questioning,” but the statement conspicuously doesn’t say the info was obtained through the use of the techniques.
I’ve asked Shelby’s spokesperson to clarify a key point: Was he told about the actual use of enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, and was he given a sense of the extent of their use, including the waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah over 83 times the previous month?
I’ll let you know if he answers.
Update: Shelby’s spokesperson clarifies:
“To Senator Shelby’s recollection of the Senate briefing, waterboarding was one the EITs the CIA said it had used. As he also recalls, the CIA described the valuable intelligence it obtained using EITs, including waterboarding.”
So Shelby does maintain that the Senators were told that EITs, including waterboarding, were in fact used. Again, he’s directly at odds with Graham.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Of course they won’t answer. Especially when Bob Graham was there and will refute them. The statemeant obviously shows that they were trying to parse words so not to come out and directly say that Shelby wasn’t briefed that the techniques had been done. Lets look at the most obvious example
.
.
Now why would that instead read, “and the value of the information being obtained from terrorists due to the implementation of the techniques.”?
.
But the really effed up part is the media will cover this statement as proof, proof I tell you that both Pelosi and Graham are lying. Just watch, and I am not just talking about FoxNews. Andrea Mitchell d@mn near just totally disregarded David Shuster’s interview with Bob Graham on her own network to try to make it seem like Pelosi was lying.
See, this is just why we really need a Special Prosecutor. There are so many versions of this now: the FBI, Pelosi, the CIA, Rockefeller, Graham now this – can we just hire someone to pursue this methodically, please?
shelby does an updated hound of the baskervilles here, the dog
that didn’t bark is when was the torture used. he really doesn’t
contradict graham at all. and furthermore since graham documents
every waking moment of every waking day, he has real time
evidence to back up what he said. remember graham chronicled
events at a time when no one knew it would be important one way
or the other.
Why are you getting caught up with whether the CIA told Nancy that the techniques had been used? She knew what the techniques were, she knew they wanted to use the techniques, and later (2003) she acknowledged that she knew they had been used. If we committed torture then Pelosi may be guilty of conspiracy under the torture statute.
“American law regards conspiracy to commit torture . . . as actual torture. . . How do you get off the hook by saying you only knew about a plan to torture but not actual torture? . . . Pelosi knew the CIA was planning to use waterboarding and later learned it was actually being done . . . As Pelosi herself tells it, she was aware of a conspiracy to torture — which is just as significant under the law as torture itself — and she did nothing about it.”
keep in mind that Graham said no EITs were discussed in any way, shape, or form. In that sense Shelby contradicts Graham…
“what was purported to be a full account of the techniques”
.
So even the spokesperson hedges about how “full” a “full accounting” really was. To me, right there, you have a problem. It sounds like even Shelby can’t verify it was really a “full accounting” – of techniques. Well, if you can’t affirm that you know “all” about them, and if the spokesperson doesn’t state anything else, then it seems like Shelby too is being less than candid.
.
Shelby: giving a less than candid account of a less than candid briefing!
TheraP, yeah, that language is weird. I noticed that too.
Re: “To his recollection, not only did the CIA briefers provide what was purported to be a full account of the techniques, they also described the need for these techniques and the value of the information being obtained from terrorists during questioning.”
This a carefully worded attempt to conflate “toture techniques” with “questioning” which does not necessarily involve the use of torture. Moreover, we know standard interview interrogation with “questioning” was occurring early on and provided results. We also now know that early on, both were occurring, but the use of only ONE of the two approaches was communicated to Congress.
Seems to me the key phrase here is:
“purported to be a full account of the techniques…”
Purported means “claimed” or “alleged” in my dictionary. Shelby isn’t just leaving the door open here, he appears to question whether he was getting the whole story also. Just as with Goss, nothing here is at odds with what Pelosi and Graham are saying. Unlike Goss, it’s looking like he’s not playing along with the GOP spin. That might change, but none of the people actually briefed in the late summer/early fall of 2002 has come forward at this point and said: “yes. I was told explicitly that WE HAD WATERBOARDED an AQ suspect.” The closest we’ve gotten is Goss saying something along the lines of “well, we just knew that they had waterboarded because they described the techique…” No dice Porter.
In response to sbj: leaving aside that literally 90% of your words are false on their face, as usual, do you support an independent investigation as do a vast majority of liberals and democrats?
See, the major difference now (and for the past decade for that matter) is that liberals are anti-corruption, anti-incompetence and anti-torture, and want to get to the bottom of what actually happened and prevent it from ever happening again, whereas Republicans like yourself who put party before country time and time again care not 1 iota about the truth and care only about attacking Democrats and defending Republicans.
So again I ask, do you support an independent investigation to let the truth come out, regardless of whom is implicated, who gets prosecuted, and who goes to jail?
Greg
.
Check out this part of the statement.
.
.
Is Shelby now saying that it WASN’T a full account of the techniques?
“American law regards conspiracy to commit torture . . . as actual torture.”
Ok, there is a lot to understand about conspiracy in American law. First off, you’re using the standard in the War Crimes Acts and that only applies where someone has been charged with a war crime which has not happened.
So you are down to arguing conspiracy on the criminal level, pursuant to federal law. Ok, conspiracy requires more than just silence under regular criminal law. It requires an act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Silence isn’t enough under regular federal criminal law. No one has been charged with any federal crime here, either.
No one has been charged with anything at all. Until someone is, any question of possible “conspiracy” is null.
If you want to argue, bring a lawyer, cause I am one.
I think the GOOPers are about to start leaning uber-heavily again on their preferred legalistic dodge when caught red-handed in a lie or criminal act: “I can’t recall.” Ready those tapes of Gonzo!
Greg
.
I didn’t see where Graham said they didn’t talk about EITs in anyway shape or form. I know he said they didn’t talk about any EITs that had been USED in any way shape or form. Where are you getting that statement where he said nothing about EITs were discussed?
.
Sorry for beating a dead horse with the phrase, I didn’t see other comments bringing up the same thing.
To supplement Tena’s point, you know what would have been against the law? For Pelosi to divulge information provided to her which was classified and top secret and which she was instructed not to divulge under threat of prosecution.
Tena: You are hilarious! I DID bring a lawyer – his name is Andrew C. McCarthy: “a former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York . . . most notable for leading the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others. The defendants were convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and planning a series of attacks against New York City landmarks. He also contributed to the prosecutions of terrorists who bombed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, resigning from the Justice Department in 2003.”
Let’s put your credentials up against his! How many terrorist convictions do you have? Much like those crazy Rethuglicans – or whatever it is you call them – you’ve fallen right into my very clever trap.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWQzYjlhZTBmYjI2OGUxNzE4YmRlMzE0YWUxZWYyOTQ=
The point is you’re all getting caught up with some point about whether Nancy was told at the one meeting she personally attended whether waterboarding had been used. The larger and more important point is that nancy knew about the techniques, knew that there was an intent to use them, and later knew that they had been used. There are some honest posters here who [formerly] were concerned that nancy had done nothing; now they appear to be trying to obfuscate and defend.
Panetta just lit the bonfire under Mme. Botox’s feet.
Two words-Speaker Hoyer.
And Gibbs is now discussing the reopening of Military Tribunals at Gitmo. What the hell is going on? Is Obama turning into A…GASP…REPUBLICAN?
sbj – again you post words with little resemblance of the truth; it’s trite and boring and we just wish you would actually be honest just as a change of pace. There is no evidence as to (i) what Pelosi was told, (ii) when she was told it, or (iii) if there was anything she could have done to prevent it (well, she couldn’t have prevented it since the facts in the record are that they had already been torturing for months before meeting with her).
.
On the 1 hand you have Sen. Shelby doing his best Abu Gonzales impression with evasive non-answers and you have anonymous people in the CIA trying to stop themselves from being prosecuted. And on the other hand you have both Sen. Graham and Sen. Rockefeller backing up Pelosi’s story 100% That is what is currently in the record.
.
Here is how we could solve it though: with an independent investigation. So do you support an independent investigation or not?
Oh, did I also mention that Pelosi also nixed a covert op in 2004? So the idea that she was “powerless” is so much additional BS.
No let’s see. Panetta unequivocally stated that she was fully briefed in 2002–so she definitely knew unless Panetta is also a liar, and the fact that she stopped a covert Op proves that she was not powerless.
Now where do we move the goalposts?
How about you all just admit what you know to be true. She is a pathological liar and she has not business being speaker.
It’s amazing what you can see from how things ‘are not said’. It’s like drawing a picture of a tree by delineating the space between the branches without drawing the tree itself. The end result is you have the same picture of the tree.
sbj – nowhere that I’ve seen is there any evidence that Pelosi was communicated that there was ‘intent to use’ torture methods. Goss says he was slackjawed that she didn’t make that assumption in 9/02, but that is weak bs.
The fallacy of Andrew C. McCarthy’s argument in his own words.
.
.
Thats how his whole house of cards falls apart. Nancy Pelosi had no means to “agree” to commit torture. She wasn’t consulted, she was briefed. She had no role in approving of such action therefore she had no ability to “agree” to such actions. If you doubt me send him an email and ask him how he would establish that in a legal sense Speaker Pelosi “agreed” to employ EITs. Let me know if he gets back to you.
Question. Would this be as big a deal as it has become if Ms Pelosi had paid attention to the old quote “It is better to be silent and thought a fool that to open one’s mouth and prove it.”? Sometimes silence is golden, but maybe Nancy has become too full of herself.
“but maybe Nancy has become too full of herself.”
Let me ask you again: Why are you so very hell bent on getting Pelosi?
Other people are far more culpable than senators who were briefed with the understanding that they couldn’t talk about it.
Do I have to say Colin Powell again? Please answer this time instead of ignoring the question =- why Pelosi?
SG: I don’t think you are reading this correctly. (I’ll ask Andy but I’ve misplaced his phone number . . .) You are reading this to say that Nancy had to agree to commit torture. No, wrong. OTHERS (CIA) had to agree to commit torture — Nancy merely had to be aware of such agreement.
“You just need to show that two or more people agreed to commit the prohibited act. Here, though, by her own account (or at least one of her own accounts), Pelosi knew the CIA was planning to use waterboarding and later learned it was actually being done. So, if Pelosi was told — as the CIA says she was — that waterboarding was being used, that’s another nail in the coffin. But for a prosecutor, it’s just gravy — not at all necessary to the case. As Pelosi herself tells it, SHE WAS AWARE OF A CONSPIRACY TO TORTURE — which is just as significant under the law as torture itself — and she did nothing about it.”
BTW, SG, have you now switched sides and are moving to defend Nancy? She knew about waterboarding in 2003 and is only now revealing this information. (She was free to comment back as early as 2005.) She knew about the classified Harman letter, she did not cosign, and even the Harman letter doesn’t object to the use of the EITs! I’d think you’d be a bit pissed . . . ?
sbj: do you agree with an independent investigation and let the chips fall where they may?
Ajax: I’ve answered this elsewhere but I will respond again. I expect in future you will answer my questions? You must admit that it is very gentlemanly for me to respond to someone who calls me a liar with every chance.
The ‘torture’ debate is not working to the Dems’ advantage. At this point we are looking at a Truth Commission that is going to be resisted by Obama (making him look hypocritical with his promises of transparency), that is going to detract from his agenda, that is going to emphasize what the DEMS knew about ‘torture’ and whether they were complicit in it, that is going to reveal that the methods ‘employed by Cheney’ yielded valuable information that may have saved lives.
However, I don’t think that any good will come of a truth commission. Personally, I’m not interested in scoring points against Pelosi, Rockefeller, etc. but that’s the only thing you’re gonna end up with. No convictions, not even any impeachments, lots of lack of transparency, hypocrisy, and resistance from the administration. The Repubs will end up looking principaled, if wrong, and no worse than they already do. It’ll only hurt Obama and the Dems and will do nothing to help in our current efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, North Korea.
While I don’t agree with even the premise that laws were broken, the rule of law does not mean that every infraction must be prosecuted.
Additionally, you say above “there is no evidence as to (i) what Pelosi was told.” You are wrong – there is evidence. “(ii) when she was told it” ??? That’s just silly, dude. We all know when she attended the only briefing she attended. She herself also admits that her staffer told her about waterboarding in 2003. “(iii) if there was anything she could have done to prevent it.” I never argued that she could have gone back in time.
you are incorrect in all aspects of your political analysis other than that the President wants to focus on other things and not get bogged down in the criminal behavior of the previous administration. watch the senate testimony of Zelikow and FBI interogator Ali Soufan, both of whom said that information was received from KSM and AZ before the torture began and ceased after the torture commenced.
.
and if Cheney (and Addington and the rest of the mendacious clowns) was not 100% meticulous in his destruction of each and every document showing that he ordered torture in order to retroactively justify the invasion of Iraq and his direct implication in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, including over 8,000 Americans, by creating a link between Al Queda and Iraq, a link that everyone sentient being knew never existed, then he has a date in the 2010 version of Nouremburg for war crimes.
.
Here is some senate sworn testimony for you from yesterday to chew on: http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=3842&wit_id=7906
.
Also, how about checking into what Sec. of State Powell’s chief of staff Wilkerson had to say about Cheney and torture. Google should be helpful, I don’t want to have to do all the work for you in your education process.
.
The good news is that while you are clearly an apologist and a party-before-country kind of guy, you are not (yet) accusing a majority of Americans of being socialists/fascists/traitors like you dead-enders are want to do, so perhaps there is hope for you yet.
.
Report back after you have done some reading and let us know what you have learned about the use of torture to retroactively justify the invasion of Iraq. I won’t hold my breath waiting for you.
Dude!
“Report back . . . and let us know what you have learned about the use of torture to retroactively justify the invasion of Iraq.”
What the heck? Can we focus on the matter at hand? Weren’t we reaming Pelosi? . . . yeech!
Regarding AZ – I won’t even try to spell that out – he was subject to ‘torture’ almost immediately, as well-documented over at JustOneMinute. Soufan’s faulty memory is also addressed:
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/04/levels-of-enhancement.html
As for Wilkerson or whatever that clown’s name is – he is being fairly well eviscerated over at The Weekly Standard so no need for further reading (who’s got the time?). Here’s one quote from him about his ‘evidence’ that really says all you need to know:
“I couldn’t walk into a courtroom and prove this to anybody, but I’m pretty sure it’s fairly accurate”.
I guess the old ‘pretty good it’s fairly accurate’ standard is good enough for you, though!
Justifying the war in Iraq? Two problems: (1) Congress authorized the war – they’re fault, not what Colin Powell presented to the UN. (2) We had every right to reinvade because Iraq did not honor the terms of surrender.
Tena,
I said nothing about “getting” Nancy P. I merely suggested that she seems to have become less likely to adequately consider the consequences of her utterances. To do so, as evidenced by this episode, can be problematic for anyone in the political spotlight. Shades of Dan Quayle and his current alter ego, Joe Biden.