CIA Docs Unclear On Whether Pelosi Knew About Waterboarding

WASHINGTON — CIA records show House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was briefed in September 2002 on harsh interrogation techniques being used on terrorist suspects, but the records do little to settle a dispute over whether she knew waterboarding had already been used against one prisoner by then.

The release in April of once-classified details about harsh Bush-era interrogation techniques, which President Barack Obama last week called "torture," has caused a squall of recriminations among congressional and Bush administration leaders who knew about the program.

Pelosi, a California Democrat, waded into that debate when she told reporters in April that in 2002 she had been briefed on the authorized techniques but was not told that waterboarding had been already been used on a prisoner. Waterboarding, which simulates drowning, is the most severe of the 10 techniques approved by the Bush White House. There is no record that Pelosi objected to using the techniques.

The CIA on Wednesday sent the House and Senate intelligence committees a chart describing the 40 congressional briefings at which the interrogation program was discussed, describing who was briefed, on what date and on what subjects.

Pelosi is only mentioned in the first briefing, on Sept. 4, 2002. The chart, drawn from the CIA briefers' memories and meeting notes, says the meeting described the interrogation techniques that had been used on alleged terrorist Abu Zubaydah.

But the CIA chart does not specifically mention the use of waterboarding at that briefing.

According to legal memos released in April, Abu Zubayda was the first of three prisoners to be waterboarded. He underwent the procedure at least 83 times in August 2002.

The first mention of waterboarding comes in the description of a February 2003 meeting attended by Pelosi's successor on the House Intelligence Committee, California Democrat Jane Harman. Harman wrote to the CIA expressing concern about the techniques, the only known objection formally raised by a member of Congress at that time.

Story continues below

advertisement

The CIA specifically discussed waterboarding in 13 of the congressional briefings, according to the charts.

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said Pelosi stands by her recollection of the meeting.

"As this document shows, the speaker was briefed only once, in September 2002," said Daly. "The briefers described these techniques, said they were legal, but said that waterboarding had not yet been used."

Even the CIA suggests that its account of the meetings will not settle the debate over who knew what and when.

"In the end, you and the Committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened," states the May 6 cover letter from CIA Director Leon Panetta to Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, the top Republican on that committee, said Thursday that calls for truth commissions or prosecutions for those who approved or carried out harsh interrogations ignore that Congress was fully informed about the methods.

"I think that nobody wants to take any accountability for it," Hoekstra said. "Is it fair to go after people in the CIA or at the Justice Department when Congress was briefed on this program and knew it was going on? That doesn't seem very fair to me. If there is going to be any accountability, (Congress) is where it needs to start."

Comments

[blairtone]

C'mon, people, you can't seriously believe, even though you want to, that Pelosi was not aware of what was going on, being said in the briefing sessions of which she was a part.

[jazgr8]

Look, either we hold our elected officials to the law or we don't. I have read a lot about this since it first surfaced and I have no doubt that Ms. Pelosi knew full well what was going on with the detainees including the waterboarding. When the issue of the missing video tapes first came to light last year, Nancy Pelosi was uncharacte­ristically silent.

If we want to prosecute officials for this behavior, then fine. But, you cannot have it both ways and Pelosi is well aware that she is complicit. Any time a politician uses the word "recollection" you can pretty much lay your money on it.

[opposition]

Nancy is the best thing that ever happened. The Republican Party needs to send this lady a great big kiss. If the Democrats want to keep the white House....y­ou should dump this unfortunate Lady. Whose President? Obama or Nancy?

[Truthahn]

Albert Speer should have tried Nancy's defense at Nuremburg. As in:

"Some Gestapo men came to my office and gave me a national security briefing. They told me that the government considered using cyanide gas on Jews to be legal, but they hadn't tried it yet. Since nobody had been gassed at that point, I did not concern myself with the matter."

[bbbtmenw]

Why are we focused so much on Pelosi?

Republicans were in power.
Republicans came up with the ideas.
Republicans OK'd the ideas and implemented them.
Republicans hid and lied about how much they were used.
Republicans lied on how effective they were.

Republicans need to be held accountable.

Dems are not totally innocent in the matter. Neither are journalists or every other American.

We all knew Bush was doing harm, lying, kidnapping­(rendition­) innocent people, putting people in prisons that were not fit for humans, and we let it happen.

We let it happen because we were taught to fear speaking up (by the Republicans). "It is un-America­n." This fear of speaking up has now turned into a fear of holding the Bush administration officials accountable.

If we do not investigate and hold people responsible, this horrible spot in our history will repeat itself. Other presidents and officials will think it is OK to do whatever they want, even though they know it is wrong.

[sandiegoman]

Bbbtmenw,

You asked why we're so focused on Pelosi.

Reason is simple: Waterboarding was approved and deemed legal at the time. She sensed change in the political wind and after the Republican administration (in name only, those clowns weren't fit to lead a taco stand, much less the once great Republican Party) left office, she sought to prosecute them and put them in jail.

When you get down to brass tacks, what she was doing was arranging laws after her party took power in order to persecute the party that is out of power so that her party can remain in party longer. These political tactics should be left to 3rd world despots, not brought over to America.

She lit the flames and tended to the fire hoping to burn some of her opponents. Now she's the one sitting in the stew. Ah, irony, what a bitter stew it is. Wouldn't you agree, Nancy?

The unfortunate thing is... in my personal opinion and from personal experience, liberals don't stray from the websites or blogs that they're used to. So her constituents over in San Francisco won't hear of this because it won't get much air time on MSNBC, it probably won't make the front page of Huffingtonpost or of dailykos, so she'll probably stay in office even though she's proven herself to be a bigger liar than that fool, W.

[partyofone]

One lesson we are learning as a nation as women move into the highest levels of leadership is that neither gender can claim stronger character or higher standards of integrity. Nancy Pelosi, Condi Rice and Hillary Clinton are no better and some than the worst of their male colleagues in government.

[obamalamdingdong]

Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded before Pelosi was briefed about him. She cannot run away from that fact or that others attending later briefings attended for the sole purpose of updating and informing her. After 9/11 she and Democrats would have went along with many things worse. They tried to find an issue they could exploit to regain power. They found one with EIT's. They ignored the context of the 9/11 time and went after Bush giving the Bush haters something to run with. The problem with finger pointing is that when you do three fingers point back at you.
Obama politically forced to announce a Gitmo closing now is exposed for not having a better place to put them or a plan to deal with them. Holder will now have to answer for his days in the Clinton Administration,when they didn't torture prisoners,they turned them over to our allies to torture for us to gain wanted info. Our allies did many things worse than waterboarding for Clinton.Ou­r security,honor,and image in the world will suffer more from these acts that are now coming out than from anything Bush did. Middle America is upset by the Obama apologies,who has been more humane throughout history than us? Germany? 8 million jews, France? Guillotine,Russia? go to Siberia,Great Britain?ask the Irish. We all fall short of grace but who has been a brighter beacon for human rights and liberty? The radical left and Nancy Pelosi snared in thier own trap.

[dlo2]

Pelosi has a wealthy and more conservative constituency among her supporters. She has never wished to alienate her base and therein lies the problem with her hesitancy in following her inner voice amidst competing demands.

[American50]

freedom of information act
Pelosi will be on trial for Pelosi bin ly'in soon

[RevengeIsNear]

I can't believe this is even a story. REally? You're serious? The media and rethugs are going after the 3rd in line, when the "Decider", the Commander in Chief, and sidekick Darth Vader (or visa versa)- e.g. those who dreamed up and allowed the TORTURE - remain scott free? Really?!!!

[sandiegoman]

Yea... too bad ol' Nancy doesn't have Executive Privilileges that the other two did. It's also pretty ironic that she's the one who's went after them so viciously not knowing that she'd implicate herself in the process.

Oh, the irony of it all! Hahahaha! I hope she rots in jail!

[whitehawk]

I do believe the Bush/Cheney WH did undermine the Democratic Senator's and Nancy Pelosi, informing them 'only' only part of what was truly being done and perhaps a timid response given to the salesmen of the memo.

[blairtone]

Of course you would believe that, whitehawk - because you want to - don't let facts interfere with your thinking , otherwise people might think you're a Republican!

[whitehawk]

Interesting article from time magazine Apr.14/06; Lindsey Graham proposed a contraversial amendment banning U.S. Courts from hearing casees brought by prisoners, or detainees. It turned out John Kyl was behind that 'works as a stealth' senator'. The May before, Dems passed an amendment banning torture of prisoners in U.S. Custody. No one paid attention.­....then in October McCain introduced his anti-torture amendment, using identical language and issues, landed on front page on newspapers across the country.

The WH jumped to attention dispatching Dick Cheney and Stephen Hadley to try talk McCain down. The bill passed unanimously.

Graham and Kyle cite' themselves; in particular, "an extensive colloquy" between the two that appears in the record on Dec. 21/05 ("legislative history") of the DTA-the official statements that members of Congress make about a bill. Justice Dept. Lawyers for Bush rely on the same colloquy as evidence "Congress was aware" that the DTA would strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear "pending cases", including Salim Ahmed Hamden. The wording folks.....­..........­..........­....

[osage]

LEGAL VS. POLITICAL ACCOUNTABILITY

I want true accountability, but I think we need to remember that the Bush administration was successful in preventing what they were doing and why they were doing it from being known, and no one knew THEN what we all know NOW regarding the motives, lies, crimes and cover-ups that Bush and Cheney were capable of.

Don't forget that Democrats didn't enjoy majority control nor did they have a president in the White House. Had those being briefed revealed what they were told, they would have ended their careers and their ability to oppose Bush's policies because a majority of Americans still believed that invading Iraq was about avenging 9/11 rather than advancing the financial interests of big oil and a Republican corporate agenda. Many also believed the lies that Sadaam Hussein supported al Qaeda and possessed WMDs.

Not only was it illegal for those briefed to reveal what they were told, they were also forbidden to talk about what they'd been told with their colleagues and or to consult with their lawyers regarding the legal viability of what the Bush administration assured them was in fact legal. The context of the time when all this happened was very different to what it is now. To be fair, we need to keep that in mind.

Nonetheless, I believe that EVERYONE who did anything ILLEGAL must be prosecuted. But I'm not rushing to the judgment that those being briefed DID DO anything ILLEGAL.

[partyofone]

Many many people were speaking out about the Bush crimes from the outset. While the Democrats did not have majority control until 2006, please name anything they did before or after to live up to the Constitutional duty of checks and balances on the Executive branch. Pelosi herself took impeachment "off the table." Democrats made noise and did nothing and are either responsible for Bushes crimes or tragically irresponsible in allowing them to go unchallenged.

The Democrats are blocking a full investigation of the Bush crimes because they KNOW they were complicit in many of them. Our Congress is a long term employment agency for ineffective, pandering politicians, and it is CORRUPT.

[jazgr8]

That's absolutely true. If crimes were committed, there are a number of Democrats just as guilty as others. Nancy P. is at the head of that table on the Dem side and she knows it.

Release all of the transcripts and memos or don't release any of them.

[blairtone]

To be fair, as you say, osage, let's admit that those being briefed knew full well what was happening/what had happened and were free to register their disagreeme­nt/objecti­ons. They, including Pelosi, did not!

[Golfer59]

So some "Cheney Mole" inside the CIA releases this memo and the Fox Propaganda machine takes it and runs with it. Blame the woman, we the republicans love beating up on women.

[partyofone]

Continuing to make the troubles of this nation an "us and them" partisan war between Democrats and Republicans seems sensless to me. The corruption is biparisan, and pretending it is not and blaming solely one side or the other plays into the hands of the profiteering special interests who fear a national consensus that would hold them accountable. The banks, the oil companies, the defense industry, the drug and healthcare industry. As long as they keep the parties warrring with each other, they own the nation.

[patriotparty1]

I a lier, your a lier, he's a lier, she's a lier would'nt you like to be a lier too. O's oath of office.

[pricespector]

The premise of this articale is laughable.­..

"Pelosi is only mentioned in the first briefing, on Sept. 4, 2002. The chart, drawn from the CIA briefers' memories and meeting notes, says the meeting described the interrogation techniques that had been used on alleged terrorist Abu Zubaydah.

But the CIA chart does not specifically mention the use of waterboarding at that briefing.

According to legal memos released in April, Abu Zubayda was the first of three prisoners to be waterboarded. He underwent the procedure at least 83 times in August 2002."

The report obviously states that the briefs contained the interrogation TECHNIQUES that had been used. Prior to the briefing, the waterboarding was used at least 83 times. I suppose they just left this "technique" out of the briefings. What joke. Pelosi is a hypocrite of the highest order.

[Snuffleupagus]

Agreed. This is nothing but damage control and an attempt to soften the blow of what is really a scandal. A more honest report on the extent of Pelosi/Dem connections to Bush torture abuses.

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/08/democrats-were-routinely-briefed-on-bush-torture-techniques-document-shows/

If the prosecution of Bush Cheney snares a few corrupt Democrats in the process, good. We don't need torture lovers in our party anyways. We need to get busy prosecuting the criminals.
Has anyone seen President Obama lately?

[ReedYoung]

The appearance of the word "techniques" on a memo is not evidence enough to conclude anything at all about Speaker Pelosi, especially since Panetta says the memos cannot be considered reliable due to being reconstructed from participants' recollections. Of course, we need a special prosecutor into the whole mess, but the standard you set is that of a witch hunt.

[Mulvaney]

Not quite a witch hunt. If the article is correct, "Pelosi waded into that debate when she told reporters in April that in 2002 she had been briefed on the authorized techniques but was not told that waterboarding had been already been used on a prisoner."

The question seems to be on whether she knew it had already happened, or whether she only knew that it had been authorized and knew it was going to happen. Or course that should not distract from the guilt of those who authorized the procedure in the first place or the need for a special prosecutor or commission to investigate it further.