CIA Interrogation Briefing List Contains More Errors

WASHINGTON — New questions surfaced Wednesday about the accuracy of a CIA document meant to settle who in Congress knew about severe interrogation methods approved by the Bush administration.

Three new errors appeared to emerge in the CIA's matrix of 40 congressional briefings on so-called enhanced interrogation techniques. Those techniques include waterboarding, a form of simulated drowning, which President Barack Obama has called torture.

The CIA acknowledged one of the errors but continued to stand by its version of events in the other two cases.

The briefing chart, widely leaked to the news media two weeks ago, was compiled by the CIA at the request of members of Congress after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed in April that the CIA failed to tell her at a September 2002 briefing that waterboarding had been used against a prisoner.

That briefing occurred within weeks of the waterboarding of terrorist suspect Abu Zubaydah. He was subjected to the procedure at least 83 times.

Pelosi has been a frequent target of criticism from Republicans who are eager to argue that Democrats knew about waterboarding and did little to stop it.

The CIA chart states that a Senate staffer, Chris Mellon, attended a briefing on July 15, 2004. However, Mellon told The Associated Press that he left the Senate in April 2004 and did not attend the briefing.

On Wednesday, CIA spokesman George Little said the CIA has reviewed its record and agrees that Mellon was erroneously listed as having attended the 2004 briefing.

Story continues below

advertisement

"The briefing chart was prepared in response to requests from Congress," Little said. "The agency compiled it in good faith after reviewing our records from 2002 to 2009. We didn't release it publicly, nor have we hyped it, and we have been candid in describing it."

The CIA matrix also reported that Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., then the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, was briefed on Feb. 4, 2003. But it notes that Rockefeller received a "later individual briefing."

Rockefeller spokeswoman Jamie Smith said Wednesday that the senator was not briefed on the CIA interrogation program until Sept. 4, 2003.

Little said that "on the Rockefeller briefing, the chart plainly indicates that he wasn't there and was to be briefed individually later. That's in fact what our records show. The chart makes no claim as to if or when that briefing occurred."

The CIA chart also shows former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Porter Goss attended a March 8, 2005, briefing as a member of Congress. However, Goss was at that time the director of the CIA. He took that job in November 2004.

"On the March 8, 2005, briefing, we were true to the records," Little said. "Although Mr. Goss was CIA director at that time, the underlying records list him as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. There's a record of an earlier briefing that lists Rep. (Pete) Hoekstra as chairman."

On Tuesday, House Appropriations Chairman Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., said that one of his committee staff members was erroneously listed as attending a briefing in September 2006. The CIA stands by its record on that count.

Obey's spokeswoman, Kirstin Brost, said the CIA was wrong.

"Our records are clear. Our records are detailed. They are mistaken," she said.

The CIA cobbled together the chart from notes, memo and recollections because transcripts of the meetings were not kept. It was sent to Capitol Hill on May 6.

CIA Director Leon Panetta acknowledged in a May 6 letter to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, that the CIA's list may not be completely accurate.

"In the end, you and the committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened," Panetta wrote.

(This version CORRECTS to show that Obey is a Wisconsin congressman.)

Comments

[nonbeliever]

What is the beef? Except when the CIA is lying they are telling the truth. This seems more true than any other statement the CIA has ever made.

[hrholmes]

And now for your entertainment we have frm vp cheney admitting torture and claiming torture gave us actionable intelligence and was cleared by... uh .... well years ago we told someone about it... but they won't release the notes so we know who, when or where and the CIA claims they don't know either. oh yeah, now that's an intelligence agency to believe in just about as much as Cheney. War crimes trials anyone?

[BuffNutts]

The apolitical (?) CIA was punked by Cheney and is now trying to shift responsibility away from its errors. Those in the Agency who stood up to the Puppet Master and defended the Constitution (like Valerie Plame) were systematically ruined. Why does it look like a bunch of amatuers are running our foreign intelligence, and why should anyone believe what is being said now? Crying "wolf" is treason.

[tjoy]

CIA wasn't punked by Cheney. They always had factual errors /lied PRIOR to Cheney/Bush Administration.

The CIA is punked by their own hands. They need to take responsible for their wrong doings and do something that is actually good for our country.

[Nyland8]

Perhaps if the CIA were actually engaged in gathering intelligence they might get more things right.

Instead, for decades, their de facto mission has actually been meddling in foreign affairs outside the auspices of the State Department, and meddling in para-military operations outside the purview of the Department of Defense, smuggling drugs outside the sanction of the DEA, peddling weapons outside the overview of the Commerce Department, and on and on. They're a rogue agency - outlaw spooks.

If we're not willing to abolish them altogether, then I say castrate them. Take away their predator drones and missiles, take away their assassins, take away their poison curare darts - or whatever they're misusing these days in third world countries - fire anyone involved in interfering with our own OVERT foreign policy overtures - and force them to concentrate on "information gathering" - which is what we were all lead to believe was supposed to be their job in the first place.

8

[solarian]

if the cia can't get that right can they get anything right

[kepary]

NANCY KNEW investigate pelosi

[jmpurser]

I realize that Republicans tend to despise knowledge and want to criminalize it and all forms of education but really it's not the law of the land yet so there's not much point in investigating people just to see if they have any.

[Durango]

No she didn't.

But more to the point: Cheney and Bush AUTHORIZED!

Prosecute!

[Pyfagorus]

What's funny is that you apparently think such an investigation would focus strictly on Pelosi. A full investigation of this matter would pose a much bigger danger for the Bush administration than for her.

[shades3]

And YOUR proof of Ms. Pelosi KNOWING about the existing and intended continuation of the torture policis is based on what?? Notes composed by the CIA based on members' recollections recorded MONTHS after the events supposedly took place??
We already know that NO NOTES were permitted to be taken by any of the attendees.
So, why, considering the CIA routinely spreads "disinformation", should we believe their "recollections", based on notes composed months later?
Is it because it's much easier to condemn Nancy Pelosi, an individual on the other side, than it is to risk offending a powerful entity like the CIA, which has repeatedly been shown to misrepresent the truth, as part of their approach to national security??
What would happen if the CIA were shown to be opportunistic liars???

[SimonOne]

These CIA briefings were undertaken with the condition that no notes were made. If the real records are released it will reveal that they succumbed to pressure from the VP's office to blatantly manipulate intelligence, against their charter and leaving individuals within the agency open to prosecution.

[Durango]

Funny how that works.

Congress can't take notes so the only record comes from the ones with motive to lie.

[outnow]

The answer is that the CIA ostensibly discharged their duties to inform Congress without actually having done so. Their documents are internally contradictory about the issue of torture. Calling it EIT was a term used much later. Who attended the briefing and in what capacity is also very inaccurate.

Torture was used to elicit statements both in support of the grounds for the war and in response to 9-11. The 9-11 Commissioners are all saying that they relied on statements which were coerced by torture.

The constitutional crisis was well underway when Pelosi took impeachment off the table. Was she too frightened to oppose the powers that be? She can only move forward now. The die is cast and she can no longer duck the responsibility.

Thye main point to remember is that torture might be used against citizens after enemies are tortured. This is a great lesson of history. Torture is being used for political purposes, not to "protect our country" even. Torture protects the political agenda.

[Durango]

Pelosi took impeachment off the table because it would have been futile and directed attention away from what they could accomplish.

She was a first hand witness to the Republicans impeachment of Clinton. Which was nothing but an exercise in masturbation.

I didn't agree with the decision then or now.

But i can understand it. And respect it.

[mKelly57]

It would have been an exercise in futility to start impeachment proceedings against Bush. For one thing she would not have the votes to impeach, plus any outcome would be reached long after the end of his term. She chose not to waste time and taxpayer money on a situation with a pre-determined outcome.
Plus in the briefings which may or may not have happened, how was she supposed to have prevented anything? She was just being informed, she could take no action at all!

[Bob4]

Errors? Or lies? It's hard to keep your dates straight when you're making them up after the fact.

The motivation of the torture was to illicit false testimony linking Iraq to Al Qaeda. Of course the CIA couldn't be truthful about it, and of course the psychology was one of deception from the start.

Interestingly, another angle to the psychology, is that it tells you they knew in their hearts that it was illegal, regardless of what quack lawyers they had, or what Cheney and Bush said. Otherwise why would they not have been open about it? The backlash maybe? Why would that be if it was legal?

[StevenevetS]

From the story: "The CIA cobbled together the chart from notes, memo and recollections because transcripts of the meetings were not kept."

Can anyone imagine a chart cobbled together after the fact that could be depended on for accuracy?
I don't see how any such chart could me admissible in any legal proceeding. And especially when you consider the covert nature of the CIA and it's unknown agendas.

It reminds me of a high school student who did not take notes in class and later, after finding out that the teacher wants to see his notebook, cobbles together notes after the face to con the teacher.

I don't see how anything in the CIA's chart can be considered reliable.

[lightningbolt]

Any organization that operated under the Bush administration cannot be trusted. They have lied to us too many times.

[outnow]

Obama needs the CIA so he went to them and told them that prosecution was off the table. Pelosi is plausibly blamed for the torture because "she knew." The Duopoly plays a blame game. Did the agents lie to Congress? No written record, tape recording, video, or transcript exists. How convenient for all.

Since faulty intelligence is blamed for the war in Iraq and torture, the public should demand investigations until we get down to the facts so that this pattern isn't repeated. Democracy cannot exist if the people are intentionally kept in the dark about the real issues.

Meanwhile, Pelosi did indeed know that wiretapping and torture was being used by Bush/Cheney but took impeachment off the table. Whatever her fate, she should have spoken up sooner. Every citizen knew about wiretapping and torture but Pelosi's actions shielded the perpetrators - now they blame her.

[powerlift2201]

This is a typical information ruse. Knowingly place small factual errors - who was actually running the place and if an aid attending on meeting - in a report in order to tie up the committee into lengthy discussions about such small factual errors. Fill the documents with so many factual errors and double talk so that there isn't any real information at all. Nothing gets solved and the committee members get to do a lot of finger pointing and postulating but nothing more. They trick the American people into believing that something was actually accomplished and the committee members get reelected.

The CIA is doing what was told to do: do anything and everything possible to get any kind of information and admit to nothing.

[outnow]

The Yellowcake documents were a case in point. Curveball was another. This is intelligence?

If we are going to get rid of the constitution, go to war on false pretenses, wiretap and torture, they will need to pinpoint the blame a little better this time to get re-elected. They also lie about the economy. So what is a voter to base his vote on? If a guy is "cool?" The real power is off the screen.

[WorldofTomorrow420]

I love how all the hypocrites­/Republica­ns (sorry for the redundancy) like Newt Gingrich are lining up behind the CIA as a pillar of honesty - these are the same people who were excoriating the CIA as recently as 2007.

[abouttime]

An error is when tipe an "i" instead of a "y".

This is a lie!
This is another internal "COvert Operation" against the American people and our "representatives".

[Urgent Fury]

Sure. Of course. Whatever you say. I believe ya.